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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MuJoCo[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. No independent sources of any type,, much less GNG sources. The only sources are two self-descriptions by the creator. Their paper and then their comments when open-sourcing it. In a search I found no even medium-depth coverage North8000 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand the nomination. I find quite a few hits in a Google search, plus a fair amount of activity on the GitHub page. It is now an open source code, supported by Google Mind with a GitHub at mujoco so presumably will be around for a bit. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a hint at a good argument. Could you elaborate? North8000 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure exactly what you want me to elaborate on; I don't use that program although some of my research has come close to multiphysics codes so I know them vaguely. All I can say is that the GitHub has both updates as well as people asking questions etc, so it is not fake or dead. Plus there is some coverage out there. I think it would be harsh to delete it, it appears to be genuine open-source code that people use and (hopefully?) will continue to be improved. Of course it could be revisited in a few years to check. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triggered by the overview that you provided I did an extra hard search. Still couldn't find a GNG type source but I found some writeups on web pages that might come close. I added them as external links with edit summaries that they are possible references. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick look this morning. According to Google Scholar, the first paper has been cited 5329 and the term MuJoCo 9250. If this was an academic then having a single paper cited this many times would pass WP:NACADEMIC criteria #C1. Probably some of the papers that cite it provide more information, I found one and added it. However this software is too far beyond my area of expertise so I am not willing to add more. If you are sufficiently versed in the area please go ahead, otherwise it might be wise to post to a project (or three) and hope that someone who is will respond. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the additional info from the above, I would have considered this to be an edge case during NPP (maybe with a bit of wp:IAR) and passed it. North8000 (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, just to be clear, are you withdrawing your nomination? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending it as a "weigh in" with obvious impact while we see if someone else weighs in. But at this point I think it's better / simpler to call it a withdrawal, so that it is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2024 (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.