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 delete. A lengthy discussion including good faith efforts by experienced editors to find satisfactory sources has not resulted in such sources being found, and consensus is to delete. Steve Smith (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DataMelt[edit]

DataMelt (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)

I do not believe this subject meets notability guidelines as outlined in WP:NSOFT. As far as I can tell, all the sources in the article are written by the creator of the software, Sergei Chekanov, or at least people closely related to its development. I have been unable to find more than a handful of papers published using this software [1], and no independent books/webpages written about it. There is also a history of COI editing on the page. BubbleEngineer (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete I also do not see notability. Just look at the empty "bug tracker": http://jwork.org/dmelt/issue/ and similarly dead forums. This is all sales pitching. Consider e.g. the "predictive analytics review" they linked. The user review is copy and paste from http://jwork.org/dmelt/#readme ... HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note As mentioned above, this is copy/pasted from http://jwork.org/dmelt/#readme BubbleEngineer (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: the sources you mention are not reliable. They are just translations from the Datamelt front page, and/or the Wikipedia article at that time, and the authors clearly never actually used the software. You also see the same author names again and again: "Matt Kapko" ('freelance writer') who churns out top-10 clickbaits for everything ("The 14 best Firefox addons", "10 must-have Safari extensions", "top 10 social media stories fo 2014", ...), "Cynthia Harvey" ("8 Open Source Big Data Mining Tools" - dmelt cannot do big data, "16 Open Source Big Data Databases", "5 Open Source Big Data Filesystems", ...). The predictiveanalyticstoday.com is either copy and paste, or even posted by datamelt themselves - the 'review' in the bottom is again a copy&paste from the dmelt homepage; and that entire website is a big clickbait, not a reliable source. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am reporting what I found, HelpUsStopSpam, although i think that the computerworld and datamation articles are in fact reliable, although not in sufficient depth to establish notability. Notice that I have not (as yet) expressed a "keep" view, which you can be sure I would not hesitate to do had I been convinced of the notability of this software. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: Just pointing out that these are copy&paste summaries from the Dmelt front page, and not reviews of the actual software. So they are secondary, but not independent sources, just like a press release reproduced with editing elsewhere is not an independent reliable source. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DataMelt is a new development of jHepWork and Scavis. There are a number of reviews written about it:

The dreamcss page is a brief review from a site that calls itself a blog, and whose reliability as a source i am not clear on. (Some "blogs" are actually reliable online columns, but most are not.) I could not find any info about who write or publishes this site. The nihlibrary page is a brief usage guide to an earlier version of the software, perhaps 1 paragraph long. Softpedia is based on user-generated content, and is not considered reliable as a source here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The overwhelming majority of independent sources mentioning this software (including those in the rather excessive lists that have recently been added to the article) are merely lists of software that, at best, describe briefly what the software does, without mentioning its significance and broader impact on the field. These certainly confirm the software exists (that was never in dispute), but existence is not the same as notability. From WP:NSOFT: "Coverage of the software in passing, such as being part of a how-to document, do not normally constitute significant coverage but should be evaluated. Inclusion of software in lists of similar software generally does not count as deep coverage." There are many, many pieces of independent/academic software produced each year that have some online presence, but have nowhere near enough impact to warrant an entire WP article. BubbleEngineer (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is a revolutionary idea! If you would apply it in practice, your criteria would kill 90% of such articles. Just go over these programs here and I will see this:

[2] [3] [4]

or should I give you a list of programs that need to be removed from Wikipedia? You you will figure this out yourself? I'll be happy to produce such a list or mark all these articles. There will be only a few left (which are likely written by paid authors - for MONEY!). Is this where User talk:BubbleEngineer going? (Personal attack removed)

Related to this DataMelt article - one can scrub a few reviews and comparisons, indeed. But the fact about the notability is very clear - it is notable.

Comment

Hi all,

Let's me jump here. I've heard about this wikipedia mess related to this article. I've started this DataMelt article a long time ago, first it was called jHepWork (~10 years ago?). Since then it has been changed lot. And not by me, or anybody who had any commercial interest in it. It would be unfair to many to remove it.

Concerning software reviews: When people write such software reviews and blogs, they usually group similar software in a single article. This is totally normal in this industry. People write "big" reviews when they profit from it, financially or professionally. From what I've heard, DataMelt was hit by blackmail from editors who wanted money, jwork.org refused, then they have spilled their anger on this wikipedia article.

If BubbleEngineer wants to apply the proposed "high standard" to internet reviews on software, the internet will be very small place to thrive. This would start a major cleansing of the Wikipedia content.

Just one example (since I'm familiar with this program). According to BubbleEngineer, one should remove this program:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROOT

The only review I see is from CERN, which financially supports it. But, this program exists for 20 years, was used for the major discovery of this century - the discovery of the Higgs boson, with millions invested to experiments that use it (no reviews!). Thousands of people in academia use it.

It would be totally insane to remove similar programs from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schekanov (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I'd very much prefer if you didn't start throwing rather unpleasant accusations around about people being paid editors. Regarding ROOT: under WP:NSOFT, "It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction." [5], [6], [7]. If you can show there are similar courses taught about DataMelt at multiple universities then this is also a way to prove notability. BubbleEngineer (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comment

Ok, BubbleEngineer. And now you are inventing a new criteria for software "being used in universities"! How this can be proven? This leaves Wikipedia with a few closed-source software - Maple, Mathematica and few more. Is this what you want?

Wikipedia:Notability (software) is not new. It provides alternate routes to notability, of which being used in university instruction is only one. Please read this page, which was linked by its shortcut above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not observe in this thread any accusations. But I did notice something. You joined to Wikipedia in April 2018, and the first thing you tried to do is to remove somebody's article. See User_talk:BubbleEngineer. You have joined to Wikipedia with the goal of removing something / someone you did not like! You tried to remove [Chris William Martin (sociologist)] and failed. Maybe you need first to gain more experience as an author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.55.212.99 (talk) 7:19 am, Today (UTC−4)

Please do not engage in Casting aspersions, IP editor. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't attack people, but provide reliable sources. In contrast to Datamelt, you can easily find plenty of courses and usage instructions on CERN ROOT at various universities, despite this being a highly specialized software for high-energy physics. You can also easily find independent coverage mentioning ROOT, e.g. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/22/cern_coverity/ and this guide at Duke University calls it "ROOT: The industry standard for High Energy Physics analysis." Chicago University also finds little software worth mentioning for HEP besides root: https://hep.uchicago.edu/hep_links.php University of Victoria HEP: also root users https://particle.phys.uvic.ca/hep/computing/cernscripts.html - and these are the kind of references we are yet missing for Datamelt. The frequent renaming, license mixtures, and the walled garden requiring registration certainly do not help popularity either. I think it should be deleted for now, although it may become notable later on, once it has a substantial user base e.g. at universities. Like ROOT. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't make our life harder by just spamming us with google search results. References like this [8] that you linked certainly do not support your point. That author just copied from some random list of software that happened to include datamelt. This is neither a review, nor a user. They obviously used Orange instead. And it is a horrible "paper" from a typical predatory publisher, useless. Don't include such sh_t. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is cool to read. All there universities you have mentioned use ROOT since then HAVE to use ROOT. It was developed at CERN, and they are part of CERN experiments. This is not their free choice. DataMelt is a Python interface to more then 100 java libraries many of which have been developed at universities. If you want to find, just pick up a library name and google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schekanov (talk • contribs) 02:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Schekanov: It is also notable if several universities have to use it involuntarily... CERN is big, and having to use it to participate in CERN makes it notable, doesn't it? Guantanamo Bay detention camp is notable, although people don't "live" there voluntarily... So where is Datamelt mandatory or actually used? Because this is about Datamelt, not about ROOT. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not agree with the decision to delete the article. The discussion opened by the user does not make sense, this is a good informative article that refers to a piece of software with relevance. I don't see COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.118.78 (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not WP:SOCKPUPPET us. We have seen this before frequently, you know, in all variants. It is not a particularly "new" idea to use different IPs and accounts to try to push your opinion. We even have many shortlinks for this, e.g WP:BADSOCK and WP:MEAT. We also frequently see WP:PERSONAL attacks, like you tried against BubbleEngineer above. We have also seen reference Wikipedia:Bombardment, as you did to your article. Stop these child games, please. The question at hand here is whether the Datamelt software is notable, or not. No matter of who raised the question. Find 3 quality references that show notable, successful, and independent users of Datamelt, not just some pseudo-reviews that never downloaded the software. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

@DESiegel and Maproom: This page and discussion to be sorted out by experienced editors, it's just getting ridiculous now... BubbleEngineer (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also [9]BubbleEngineer (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the most common is the General Notability Guideline, which says that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. WP:BASIC is the variant of this for biographies.
Then there are several alternate criteria derived from Wikipedia:Notability (software) These are:
  • It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. Note that as long as reliable sources are saying that the software is significant, those sources do not need to be written by people who have used the software.
  • It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction. So if multiple schools teach how to use a piece of software, it is notable.
  • It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. (Notability, not existence, must be established by such citations without synthesis of published material) So if people not connected with the software have written extensively about how or when to use it, it is probably notable.
  • It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability.
Could future comments be directed to why DataMelt does, or does not, meet any or all of these criteria, please? Or other reasons relevant to Wikipedia policy. The motives of any of the editors who have worked on the article, or commented here, are really beside the point. If the topic is notable but the article is currently promotional, then it should be rewritten, not deleted. Contra-wise, if the topic is not notable, it makes no difference how neutral the article is. In my view, no one in this discussion has yet made a clear case for this topic meeting any of the above criteria. But that does not mean that no one can make such a case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comment

Why "the usage in university" is even a question? Who is suppose to scan ~150,000 google links related to the SCaVis/DataMelt/jHepWork project to figure this out? I've scanned this link with Wikipedia articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Numerical_software

After 10 min of looking, it is impossible to establish "University" usage > 90% of these programs. Most of these articles do not come even close to the number of references on the DataMelt article. Remove them all?! BubbleEngineer "revolutionises" Wikipedia ?!

I do not think it should be removed, nor any of the Wikipedia articles in the link above and:

[10]

[11]

The DataMelt article was on Wikipedia for ~10 years (converted from JHepWork/ScaVis). So, what is special about this particular time? This article uses a neutral language (thanks for all editors), and has a significant number of links showing its usage. DataMelt is well promoted by books and many other resources, not by this Wikipedia article.

And I should say I'm biased since I support many open source programs, and removal of this article would set a nasty precedent for >90% of software articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsma73 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have had literally thousands such "nasty precedents" already over the years. That is daily business for deletion discussions. You are literally just doing everything in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. See: WP:OLDARTICLE and WP:ALLORNOTHING. And >90% of software articles here do establish notability, e.g., CERN ROOT. So stop this, stop personal attacks, and instead focus on the notability of Datamelt here, not of other stuff. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User talk:HelpUsStopSpam

How many citations do you need to establish notability? 33 citations listed in this article is no good? You need 50, 100? How many users should use a scientific program in order to make it "notable". Where is your red line for deletions of articles on software programs in these "computer science" categories? I could not get any of these answers in your posts. Ok, let's look at just one article:

IntegrationsSpektrum: SCaVis – Werkbank für technisch-wissenschaftliche Berechnungen und Visualisierungen mit Java und Jython JavaSPEKTRUM - Ausgabe 05/2013 by Klaus Rohe

This article is specifically about DataMelt ("Scavis" was older version name). Is JavaSPEKTRUM a notable?? YES. The article is in German, and written by an independent reviewer - Klaus Rohe. We wrote many reviews in this German magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsma73 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC) and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8100:7f90:e44f:/3416:9701:39d7 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2018‎[reply]

While I can't read it, that seems so far the only article that should be appropriate as reference and help your cause. Because, seriously, some "references" you added are abyssal... bring more like that article. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This one looks like a reliable source. Another one like this and you may get my weak keep "vote". However, your statement "We wrote many reviews in this German magazine" casts shadow over intellectual independence of said magazine. Quantity of sources will not help there, quite the opposite as nobody will browse through another wall of garbage references. Pavlor (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comment

Sorry, "We" should be "He"! I've misspelled it. You should read "He wrote many reviews in this German magazine". Yes, one article but this seems enough according to this thread: 

 If DataMelt is not a notable topic, then there should not be an article about it.

This sounds a singular to me. Ok, persons are no good. How about this "dedicated" [28] article by a company:

http://www.miritech.com/products/aws/datamelt.aspx

Click on the deployment instruction tab, how it works. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsma73 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your quote "not be an article about it", this means "if Datamelt is not notable, then there should not be a Wikipedia article". It is not about the number of reliable sources.
As for miritech, I do not consider this to be a reliable source. Most of the datamelt description is just copy & paste from the datamelt homepage, so it clearly is not independent. It is not even spell checked ("nteworks"). This is just cheap advertisement material; you can see below they created such screenshots for any easy to run program. They do not even load a data set... Find something that not just copy and pasted the marketing blurbs like "more than 4000 classes come with Java API" and "Not to mention modules of Groovy and Ruby." even the "proceed to its amazing features" is just copy and paste from your self-praise. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Not correct. They have developed their own content on miritech web page. There is a detailed instruction on how to use datamelt on Amazone clounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsma73 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, learn how to sign, format, and comment. You create an unreadable mess here...
Also you are wrong. The miritech does not show usage of Datamelt. Only how to SSH to their VM and invoke "java". They just mass-produce such instructions for everything without actually using any of it. That Miritech site a worthless SEO spam. And as I explained in detail, all their text is just copy & paste of your web site. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same holds for the "Assignment Help Service for Hadoop Tool" site that Schekanov just added. That is an essay mill SEO page, borderline illegal. Again, useless. They never used datamelt. They just advertise they could copy&paste a homework assignment for you if you pay them money. These are not links that we want to have in Wikipedia! HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLet's me clarify this. In the academic word, there is no culture of hiring freelances to write "independent" reviews on software. In my field, thousands and thousands of scientific articles are written without mentioning what program is used for final results and figures. Even if you find a few articles about such programs, it will certainty be written by developers - this cannot fall under the Wikipedia category of "independent". This is why it is almost impossible to find "independent" citations in all these articles:
[12] and [13]
But all such articles, without doubt, should stay to increase public awareness in science. In the case of jHepWork (2015, old DataMelt), we used this program with students for many publications at the DESY lab and for the International Linear Collider work. The complexity of this program is not for a typical undergraduate level at universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schekanov (talk • contribs) 22:45, 11 May 2018 (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.
More