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 merge to SciPlore MindMapping. The consensus is that the software itself is not yet notable, but that a merger with the predecessor software would be good until the time when/if it becomes notable in its own right PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Docear[edit]

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

Does not appear notable yet. Beta version of this software only released 50 days ago. Almost all references are to self-published or non-independent sources. Singularity42 (talk) 10:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: typical WP:TOOSOON issue. The effect this software had on education, collaboration software, etc. is yet unknown, so the topic is not encyclopedic. I would prefer userfication if requested. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOT delete: The reason is simple: The Software is actually only a major increment in development of the earlier SciPlore_MindMapping software, but from now on with a new name as stated in both articles. The question is, however, if it makes sense to maintain to distinct articles or better merge them under the new name. --AMH-DS (talk) 12:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with SciPlore MindMapping like previous comment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOT DELETE as Docear is the official successor of SciPlore MindMapping (which is a few years old). It could be argued to merge the articles. However, it could also be argued to keep both articles because Docear is offered by a new team, with new website etc. --DrDooBig (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the keep !votes above (or "not delete") or merge !votes address the problems raised in my nomination: that notability cannot be verified as this software is still in the development stage, and the sources are almost all self published:

Reference 1: A 2011 paper released by the software's developers, and therefore not independent.

Reference 2: A blog release on the software's official website, and therefore self-published and not independent.

Reference 3: An irrelevant Latin dictionary definition of the word this software is named after, and therefore has nothing to do with notability.

Reference 4: A blog review, which is not a reliable source.

Reference 5: A 2002 academic paper having nothing to do with the notability of this software (developed almost a decade after this paper came out).

Reference 6: More information from the software's official website, and therefore self-published and not independent.

Simply put, this software is not notable yet. It may be notable soon, but it is not notable yet. Singularity42 (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be notable to be merged. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE I am one of the developers of Docear and I added two references to increase the notability. In addition, I would like to emphasize that the paper you described as "not independent" was peer-reviewed and published on the most reputable conference in the field of literature management and digital libraries. I can hardly imagine a more reliable and noteworthy reference. In addition, Docear is the successor of SciPlore MindMapping, a software we are working on since many years. Docear is downloaded around 300 times a day and we received a 100,000 Euro grant for the development from the German Government (reference added). --JoeranB (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— JoeranB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Traditionally, it is keep everybody, not not delete. Singularity42 (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two new sources do not increase notability. The first is a October 2011 entry from a "News" section of a university department's website indicating that three people will be joining to work on Docear (and then going on to describe what Docear is). The second is a version of Docear was exhibited at the CeBIT trade show. What Wikipedia needs are reviews, etc. by third-party, reliable sources. So far, there are none. I fully expect there will be eventually, at which time Docear will merit a Wikipedia article - but not just yet. Singularity42 (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And user feedback pages and YouTube videos (i.e. this diff) are not reliable sources either. Singularity42 (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news website of that university was not only saying that three people will work for that university but is states that Docear is funded by the "BMWi" which is the German Ministry of Economics. I believe that if the German Government is funding a project this says quite a bit about the notability. Similarly, if a project exhibits on CeBIT, the world's largest computer expo, this shows that the software is worth being noticed. And btw. a few month ago we won a business plan contest with Docear http://www.fuer-gruender.de/blog/2012/03/gruender-ego-businessplanwettbewerb/ And regarding third party reviews of the software: The reference to CHIP http://www.chip.de/downloads/Docear_42643130.html is a review, made from one of Germany's most popular computer magazines. This magazine gave 4 out of 5 stars to Docear (see "Erster Eindruck"). I believe there is far less notable software than Docear that still has their own page. Just when I look at other reference managers I find software like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar%27s_Aid (no references at all) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pybliographer (only 2 self published references). And to be honest, I don't get the overall point. Even if there were no third party reviews, do you doubt that Docear has a decent amount of users? Or do you find the information provided in the wikipedia article too advertisement-like or unreliable? JoeranB (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)— JoeranB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

My views about the number of users, etc. is irrelevant. Wikipedia has specific requirements for notability, reliable sources, and verifiability. Singularity42 (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we have a) a reference to CHIP showing that a major computer magazine liked the software (third party review) b) an academic paper accepted by independent reviewers of a major conference who considered Docear to be important for the academic community and c) the grant of the German Government who considered Docear being worth to support it with 100,000 Euros. That's three sources that are reliable, verifiable and they pretty well show the notability of Docear. I hope you agree and go along with my suggestion to Keep the article. JoeranB (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)— JoeranB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'd rather see it merged as suggested previously, and for the same reasons. I agree that it may have notability, per JoeranB, yet I hesitate to vote for keep. Merging makes more sense to me, especially as Docear was "originally created under the name SciPlore MindMapping". I think it makes the most sense to merge both articles into one, and redirect the other. Marikafragen (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No notability defined. When it starts receiving coverage in the media we can create a new article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Docear, per WP:INCUBATE (providing there are editors willing to work on the article as and when references become available). -- Trevj (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Salvage any useful information for whatever article it should be merged to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marikafragen. Also, the notability guidelines seem to be applied rather selectively - I checked a few mindmapping tool articles at random, and almost none of them referenced to independent articles in reliable sources. --Tgr (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2012 (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.