Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ActiveMath


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

ActiveMath

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Appears to be both an organization and a software package; does not establish notability as either. The only WP:RS provided might be legitimate scholarly articles, but both are authored by the project's senior researcher (Dr. Erica Melis); thus this article is based solely on primary sources without any actual third-party support. Searching for information only tends to bring up press releases (mainly in German) and a few cursory mentions without actual information about the topic. -- Kinu t /c  18:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC) -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
 * -- Polx (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC): contesting deletion. The software is described in some papers made by others. One article already linked, others to come.


 * Delete, weakly: apparently created by an academic, almost all sourceable coverage seems to be traceable to her. Article is strongly promotional in tone, and vague: a web-server software that supports learners self-regulated path through techniques such as Adaptivity, Artificial Intelligence, User modeling, Semantics, and intelligent tutoring systems; this string of glittering generalities and buzzwords doesn't even mention mathematics. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed... the buzzwordiness makes it seem like this could be borderline WP:SPAM as well, and the edits appear to be coming from SPAs with connection to the subject (as a simple search of those real-world usernames reveals). I do see a third reference which at least isn't "Melis, et al."... but there's no way of knowing how much of it is actually firm coverage about the topic, rather than a review/comparison to other technologies (the abstract indicates ten such systems), and one reference does not constitute "significant third-party coverage" anyway. -- Kinu t /c  18:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Agree with the promotional tone which should be tuned down. I know the platform and find that the buzzwords are actually meaningful here, and this is because the platform is about mathematics where a model of the learner's competencies can be automatically updated when the learner answers exercises testing these competencies. It's way harder in other fields (except maybe linguistics and grammar or mathematically oriented physics) where building an interactive exercise with randomness is so difficult. Because of the artificial intelligence engines, it's much easier in math to produce (infinitely) many training exercises on the same subject of roughly the same difficulty. I haven't published anything about it yet. Christian.Mercat (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are no sources indicating this noteworthiness you are suggesting. -- Kinu t /c  14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * I would like to request a longer "grace period" since finding sources that are web-friendly is harder than finding literature pointers. I just found a web-accessible-for-free variant of the first citation and added another one. Polx (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion was relisted. I would suggest finding sources that actually establish notability. The second source (Trgalova) appears to be identical to the first; it is also the only one that is accessible. That source appears to be a chart which only mentions the subject of this article three times in comparison to other similar software, and even those mentions are very trivial and in a chart. Likewise, based on the abstract, it is hard to assess the depth of coverage in the Bokhove article. That hardly meets the significant coverage aspect of notability. -- Kinu t /c  22:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just looked the full text of the other (Bokhove) article; ActiveMath is mentioned in a total of about four scattered sentences throughout the article. Again, not significant coverage, but a very cursory comparison to other systems. -- Kinu <sup style="color:red;">t /<sub style="color:red;">c  22:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise, it is only fair to point out the possible conflict of interest in this article, per your user page. -- <strong style="color:blue;">Kinu <sup style="color:red;">t /<sub style="color:red;">c  22:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Christian. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Given this vague non-rationale, I will ask you the same question I asked him: where are the sources? The only information appears to be either (a) primary sources or (b) extremely cursory reviews of the software. Nothing to establish notability. -- <strong style="color:blue;">Kinu <sup style="color:red;">t /<sub style="color:red;">c  22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete there are lots of similar products about and I can't see anything which makes this one standout. The references are not really enough to meet Notability (web).--Salix (talk): 13:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey User:Salix alba, we'd be enchanted to hear about more similar products of which there seems to be lots. Honestly, I haven't seen that. It'd be time we hear about these ;-). Polx (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.