Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bayes++


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Bayes++

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable piece of software. Mentioned a few times in the academic literature according to GScholar, and also only a few times on the web according to Google. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 12:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. No Sources, all references are self referential. Puff piece, Advertising article. scope_creep talk 12:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not fully certain whether it should pass WP:BIO, as it is not a biographical article... I don't see much puffery either. Nonetheless....


 * Delete - Short article, may have some limited notability, however, the only content on the page is likely plagiarized: . {{{sub|C}}  A S U K I T E  T} 15:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Indifferent - As the original author of the article in 2005, I thought the library was going to gain popularity. However, development seem to have ceased for the last year (based on Git history), and the library seem to have negligible impact in the scientific literature. I therefore understand the arguments for deleting the article. Fredrik Orderud (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect or delete The paper Šmidl, V. "Software analysis unifying particle filtering and marginalized particle filtering." In Information Fusion (FUSION), 2010 13th Conference on, pp. 1-7. IEEE, 2010 looks at Bayes++ in some depth, but it is the only one I found that had more than simple mentions of "we used this". That the software is on a Boost short list of packages based on Boost confers some real world notability. But I haven't found the multiple RS needed for notability. Basic info about the library is verifiable in reliable sources, and per WP:PRESERVE, merging a mention and redirecting to a suitable target would be preferable to deletion. Possible targets are List of statistical packages or List of numerical libraries. But without a standalone article, such a merge  into either article might be out of place. --Mark viking (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2013 (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.