Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdaControl


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

AdaControl

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP: N. PROD removed by article creator who added a user testimony. Since this testimony is self-published, it cannot be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The testimony is from Jacob Sparre Andersen, editor of the Ada User Journal and a subject-matter expert. I also found and .  Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've struck [1] as the bulk of this information is copied from AdaControl's website, as is was the article lede.  Aaron Liu  (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I get an access denied error when viewing [2]. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Login to the WP:TWL. Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @HyperAccelerated Sorry, I didn't realize that it was an expiring link. While archive.org deems this upload to be spam, go to and click on the first result.  Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, that source isn't independent though. It's published by a committee called QualOSS. One of the members of QualOSS, as listed on the first page of their report, is AdaCore. AdaCore has provided services for the benefit of Adalog -- see this document that suggests a substantial rewrite of one of Adalog's systems. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That reads like a design document about how they simplified a language feature or component of their software called "Adalog". It treats "Adalog" as a software component or feature instead of an entity. It shows example features of transformations they want libadalang, an analysis tool for Ada, to do. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Searching further in their GitHub repos, according to https://github.com/AdaCore/langkit/blob/master/langkit/support/langkit_support-adalog-solver.adb, "Adalog" here is a pseudocode language made by AdaCore. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Separately, the testimony is self-published. Even if he is a subject matter expert, why should we consider this reliable? None of the presentation contents have been reviewed by others. I don't have reason to doubt Andersen's credentials, but one self-published source alone cannot establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFPUB: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting, we need more thoughtful opinions here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not self-published, it was presented at the "Reliable Software Technologies – Ada-Europe 2017", proceedings published by Springer, see https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-60588-3 Jprosen75 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe this to be JP Rosen, whose connection to AdaControl is explained in this bio. They've created ~46% of the page. I've left them a COI warning. I'm tagging the article, which also contains promotional language like "gives the same level of accuracy as the language", soon. Still, I don't think that means we must delete, as these are all fixable issues. Aaron Liu  (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This AfD has been out for nearly a week now and most of the sources found don't really establish notability. Are we sure this article should still be kept? HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, see my response above. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "gives the same level of accuracy as the language" is really about ASIS, and explains why ASIS was chosen for the tool.
 * Yes, I am the author of the software, and I'm willing to improve as required. Jprosen75 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did your authorship have to be pointed out by another user? You need to read WP: COI. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Chill it, I already sent a message about COI. Not every new user can automatically know to read all policies. Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rosen disclosed his connection in 2010 . Do your homework, HyperAccelerated, and don't be making accusations without something more than an opinion. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate being told to "do my homework" when WP: DISCLOSE hasn't been followed. Talking to hardworking volunteers like they're children isn't funny.
 * Notices need to be displayed prominently on the talk page or on a user's profile. Having it mentioned in passing in an improperly formatted Talk discussion is not in line with policy.
 * Please direct any further correspondence about this matter to my Talk page -- my willingness to assume good faith drops dramatically when you add remarks like these to the discussion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If it is true, then it needs a source that states that claim in full. IMO using the same "backend" doesn't necessarily mean they have the same level of "accuracy". Aaron Liu  (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, I am not a frequent contributor, and I did not know about the COI policy. Feel free to add the COI template (I am not sure to do it correctly myself). Actually, I added this article when I saw that AdaControl was missing from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis, while the competitors software were there, which I found unfair. Jprosen75 (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete for inadequate sourcing and lack of evidence of notability. The article, "derived in whole or in part from Adalog" comes across as heavily promotional. Please note the serious COI issues when considering the discussion above. Doczilla  Ohhhhhh, no! 05:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doczilla How do the COI issues make it fail notability? What about the sources I've provided? Aaron Liu  (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not say the COI issues have anything to do with notability. They might make a difference, though, when considering the relative weight of !votes and objectivity of arguments made by those with conflicts of interest, and they may bring added scutiny when considering promotional aspects of the article: Are we able to trust the article, and are we able to trust those who fight to keep it? Speaking of those sources, they are not impressive. Valid, reliable, independent sources are needed. Closers will be familiar with such things and will make their own decisions. I have weighed in on this, so I will not be the closer. Doczilla  Ohhhhhh, no! 05:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe that the two sources are enough. Sure, the JSA presentation is less than ideal, but both are independent, significant, and reliable. Even just the Qualoss article is enough to write a stub about. Aaron Liu  (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sources do not support notability. Owen&times; &#9742;  11:54, 23 June 2024 (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.