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. There appears to be a general consensus that notability for the subject has not been established. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KSSOLV[edit]

KSSOLV (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)

A mass of references but do any of them provide evidence that this tool is of interest to anyone except theoretical physicists? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Theoretical physicists read wikipedia too. Notability is demonstrated with references to well respected journals. The article could be made more accessible by readers without a masters degree in Math or Physics but that's not a reason for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As with your previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Programming_with_Big_Data_in_R, there is no WP policy that states an article needs to be notable outside a given specialty. Instead the real criteria for AfD are whether (1) there are multiple independent in-depth reliable sources and (2) the article has surmountable problems. The article has five references, all to peer-reviewed articles in mainstream math, physics and chemistry journals that are all considered reliable sources. One concern is that all the references about KSSOLV involve the project originators, but there exist independent articles such as Adaptive Regularized Self-Consistent Field Iteration with Exact Hessian for Electronic Structure Calculation and Anderson Acceleration of Fixed-point Iteration with Applications to Electronic Structure Computations that consider KSSOLV in depth. Multiple independent sources show this topic to be notable. There are article problems--I agree with RadioFan that the article is too technical, and the further reading list is too extensive--but these are surmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the further reading list to the most relevant sources, and revised to make the article less technical (hopefully). Many thanks for pointing that out. Tamcd00dle (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "five references" mentioned by User:Mark viking above are insufficient to establish notability. Tkuvho (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With changes made to the article, the "five references" is now out of date. Of the current references in the article, at least (1) C. Yang, J. C. Meza, B. Lee, and L-W. Wang. KSSOLV: A MATLAB toolbox for solving the Kohn-Sham equations. ACM Trans. Math. Soft., 36 (2009), pp. 1-35, (2) Wen, Zaiwen, et al. Adaptive regularized self-consistent field iteration with exact Hessian for electronic structure calculation. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 35.3 (2013): A1299-A1324, and (3) Ni, Peng. Anderson acceleration of fixed-point iteration with applications to electronic structure computations. Diss. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 2009 deal with KSSOLV in depth and the first two are peer reviewed articles. I have not checked the others for depth of coverage on KSSOLV. --Mark viking (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Contrary to what is apparently RadioFan's contention, most of the references in the article have nothing to do with the subject. (In particular, no reference published prior to KSSOLV's introduction in 2009 can possibly have anything to do with KSSOLV.) Looking at google scholar shows that the paper introducing KSSOLV receives only 14 citations, which I think is too little to merit an encyclopedia article. I also don't think that using this toolbox to do a numerical calculation in a research article rises to the level of notability needed for an encyclopedia article (contrary to Mark viking's argument for keeping). Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the references predate the creation of this package, and therefore certainly cannot establish notability. Tkuvho (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the "further reading" pages predate 2009, but the references are either explanations of background information or recent papers about KSSOLV. Tamcd00dle (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Background explanations" do not establish notability. Your first reference "W. Kohn and L. J. Sham. Self-consistent equations including exchange and correlation effects. Phys. Rev., 140., (4A): A1133-A11388, 1965" dates from 1965 and cannot establish notability of software introduced half a century later. It seems there is a good chance KSSOLV will become notable in the future, but trying to push it through at this early stage when notability is marginal merely wastes everybody's time. Tkuvho (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I deleted the first reference (the Wikipedia page for Kohn-Sham equations should suitably explain the concept) and now all the references are relevant and directly discuss the KSSOLV software. Tamcd00dle (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:V is fairly easy to meet for software, and this page seems to do so. Prodego ^talk 14:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not really addressing the point of this AfD. As you correctly point out, verifiability is easy to meet. However, this does not establish notability. Tkuvho (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tkuvho The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not notability. That's why WP:V is a policy, and WP:N is not. Prodego ^talk 20:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is AfD. Notability is precisely what needs to be determined. (See the deletion policy: WP:DEL#REASON number 8.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very common misconception that notability is the inclusion requirement, but it is not so. The notability guidelines exist purely to more easily distinguish cases where verifiability (through independent, reliable sources) is likely to exist. You'll notice this in WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria". In other words, if there is significant coverage in reliable sources, it is presumed to be a topic with sufficient verifiability. Prodego ^talk 20:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the very question of notability is whether the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Has it? The original ACM publication is not independent of the subject. Are there other sources that address the subject in detail, rather than just mentioning it in passing (e.g., "The Matlab toolbox KSSOLV was used to perform this calculation.")? Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the question of notability, yes: "is there is significant coverage in reliable sources?" If there is will be possible to verify the material of the article, and it will meet WP:V. In my opinion the sources cited are sufficiently reliable to verify the material which is cited to them. You may disagree. But either way AfD is all about deciding whether it is possible to verify the material within an article. Prodego ^talk 21:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might think it all comes down to WP:V, but you would be wrong. I maintain that, while the content in the article might be perfectly verifiable, the subject is insufficiently notable. It hasn't been the subject of independent in-depth reviews normally required for notability of software. Again, see the deletion policy: WP:V and WP:N are listed as separate items. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prodego's attempt to deny an explicit WP:AfD policy is surprising. The guidelines explicitly list the following as one of the criteria for deletion: "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. Denying explicit wiki policy undermines the credibility of User:Prodego's vote. Tkuvho (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prodego has been editing for approximately twice as much time as User:Tkuvho, and has a perspective that is based on the evolution of the deletion, notability, and verifiability policies over many years. Discounting his viewpoint because of a single item on a list, particularly an item that he does not disagree with, does not make much sense. Prodego ^talk 01:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Prodego: Congratulations upon your impressive record of contributing to wiki. As far as notability is concerned, two editors here have provided links to specific guidelines asserting that notability is a factor in AfD discussions. You are the only one who seems to be claiming that notability is not a factor. An editor who disregards such guidelines undermines his own credibility as far as the AfD process is concerned. Meanwhile, I appreciate (and do not discount) your viewpoint. Tkuvho (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Prodego is such an experienced editor, it is rather baffling that he (or she) seems to want to discount the notability guideline as irrelevant—first by claiming that it is "only a guideline" [1], and then by quoting out of context that very same guideline [2]. This is not Prodego's first AfD, and he (or she) knows full well that many if not most AfD discussions center on the question of notability of the subject. So User:Prodego is strongly advised to reflect on the behavioral guideline WP:POINT in addition to the deletion policy. If Prodego disagrees with the deletion policy as currently stated, as his or her last comment seems to indicate, then the appropriate forum for trying to change that policy is through a request for comment at the relevant discussion page. It is obviously inappropriate to try to redefine radically the deletion policy during a deletion discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Almost all the references are for background information on the type of problem this software is meant to solve; they don't actually discuss (or even mention) this software package in particular. The remaining references are all to primary sources. So as far as I can tell the article is supported by no sources at all which are independent of the subject and which cover it in detail. WP:GNG is not met. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have included 10 references. [1], [2], and [10] are not independent, as they are written by the creators of KSSOLV. The other sources, though, directly mention and cite KSSOLV in particular: I have read through each of the papers to ensure that. As I have mentioned, 3 of the sources are not independent; the rest, however, are completely independent, are written by academics around the globe, and are published in notable journals. I understand your concern, but I must disagree. Tamcd00dle (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Tamcd00dle: Subtracting 3 from 11 one usually gets 8. Now 8 citations is not much to go on if you are trying to establish the notability of a subject. If that's all that KKSOLV is going for it at this point, it should definitely be deleted for lack of notability. Tkuvho (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that of the remaining 8 citations, 4 are either preprints or unpublished dissertations. That leaves us with 8-4=4 potentially acceptable citations, definitely not enough to establish notability. Tkuvho (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the numerology. The quality of the references is more relevant. Passing mention of KSSOLV does not contribute to its notability, but an in-depth discussion does. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are you going to evaluate the quality of unpublished references, such as an arxiv post? Tkuvho (talk) 12:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my point. My point is that four independent secondary sources published in reasonable journals discussing a subject in detail easily establishes notability. (I'm not going to quibble about arxiv and other self-published venues: usually these are not acceptable as sources, but sometimes they are. That's not really relevant to my point though.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing up the arxiv preprint. After some searching around, I have found the proper publication source for reference [3]. [1], [2], and [10] are not independent, as I have mentioned, although they provide good information on KSSOLV. [5] and [6] mention KSSOLV and explain the methodology of the software generally. [3], [4], [7], and [8] go into depth on KSSOLV, and base their research on that program. [9] uses KSSOLV for research as well. Tamcd00dle (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a book discussing the toolset I might agree that it definitely satisfies GNG, but what we have here is a much shorter publication which used the toolset. The Journal on Scientific Computing publication does not give significant coverage, only the briefest of descriptions before they focus on their own work, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; it's the quality, not the number, of the references which count. Tamcd00dle, could you please point to those published references which discuss the software in depth? —Psychonaut (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Marginal notability, this could go either way really; it rests on two articles, one a thesis, the other a single article using KSSOLV but not writing about it. I would really expect a notable toolset to be mentioned in more works and in lots of detail. I'll note that being of interest only to experts in a particular mainstream field does not make something non-notable, else we would delete most physics articles. I do not see the article being technical as a problem, it is an inherently technical topic. It would be preferable if the background information also included some maths to demonstrate the points being made, but that doesn't factor into delete vs keep. IRWolfie- (talk)

• Keep Even if you disqualify ref 1[] etc. based on non-independence, aren't refs [6], [9] etc. alone sufficient for notability? SPat ^talk 16:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Disclosure: I am affiliated to one of the institutions mentioned in the article.[reply]

Now [6] and [8]. Tamcd00dle (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tamcd00dle has been editing the article since I started writing this, so I've lost track of most of the specific references I was referring to. But I've gone through them all and see only one that contributes to establishing notability, namely the dissertation by Ni. The rest are either non-independant, just say that they used KSSOLV but don't really talk about it in depth, or don't even mention it in the running text (but rather just include [1] in their references). Note that in depth discussion of algorithms that solve the Kohn-Sham equations is not the same as in depth discussion of KSSOLV. I don't think there's enough to merit KSSOLV having its own article. What I do think these references show is that there's a lot of interesting stuff that can be added to Kohn–Sham equations. I'd recommend that any relevant info and sources be moved there and this article then be deleted. 786b6364 (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 786b6364's comment seems aimed at the references in the article, but the exact same thing can be said about mentions of KSSOLV that can be found in Google scholar: only Ni's thesis looks to have independent non-trivial coverage, and it isn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that passing mention or insignifigant coverage does not meet the criteria for WP:GNG. Coverage that is not independent but lacking sufficient citation rates cannot be considered notable either. I also agree that reporting on solutions for Kohn-Sham equations is not the same as in-depth reporting on KSSOLV. This may achieve notability someday, but the difficulty is that it is a tool set most likely subordinate to other research. However, hopefully I do not sound like I am diminishing its usefulness. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others who have pointed to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. While the article is referenced, the references mostly cover background not directly related to the subject of the article. Those references that do address KSSOLV are not sufficiently independent or significant to meet the WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks to everyone who has participated in this AfD. I would just like to add some comments - [5] and [6] mention KSSOLV and explain the methodology of the software generally. [3], [4], [7], and [8] go into depth on KSSOLV, and base their research on that program. [9] uses KSSOLV for research as well. Those sources are independent. [1], [2], and [10] are not independent, although they provide the most information about KSSOLV. Tamcd00dle (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. It seems to have been reasonably established that this is a useful piece of software. What has not been established at all is its notability. Usually a topic has to have much more than a handful of references to be a suitable subject of a page here. Tkuvho (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: refs 3, 6, 7 and 8 are about KSSOLV, or are research papers that employ KSSOLV in their methodologies? Is there any independent research or other coverage directly about KSSOLV as its subject? --Batard0 (talk) 11:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Comppletely Rewrite. Not so much "Completely", but as it stands, this is very promotional , especially the "Setup" section . Dimension10 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not addressing the notability concerns raised by a number of editors. Tkuvho (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Tkuvho. "Rewrite" and "promotional" wording are copy edit and content issues and do not address the notability of this subject. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:GNG is our guiding document, and this is not notable by that document. —Wasell^(T) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Prodego and Tamcd00dle; meets WP:V and WP:NSOFT. Miniapolis 17:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NSOFT guideline you mentioned specifically states that "Wikipedia is not a directory of all software that can be confirmed to exist". Therefore notability still needs to be established. Tkuvho (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are used that pass verifiability, but not in a way that shows this subject to be notable. Apparently, the sources do not adequately show that KSSOLV is, as yet, significant in its particular field, per WP:NSOFT. Also it does not seem to fit the inclusion criteria for WP:NSOFT either. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:03, 7 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.