Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantata++ (3rd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Cantata++
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

How did this pass review? The sources still do not provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - the book coverage appears to be both significant and reliable, making the software notable. Pinging  who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I don't see a book listed.
 * Then you obviously didn't look very closely. There are three listed in the article already.  Many others can be found here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean the passing mentions in the three books. That's does not meet significant coverage. I thought you meant that there was a book written on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A "passing mention" is a sentence or two. If you think 7 pages (The Handbook of Software for Engineers and Scientists) is a passing mention, then with all due respect you have no clue what "significant coverage" means.  That probably the longest, but I would several others with more than a page of coverage from the above link.  An avaerage length news article on a subject - which would always be considered "significant" - would be less than half a book page.  Clearly 1-2 pages of book coverage in 5+ distinct sources, and 7 pages in another, is way sufficient to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: ThaddeusB acknowledges further below (search on "my bad") that the 7 page reference is unrelated. -- do ncr  am  21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Per accepting the article, the sources assert the notability and per the book coverage is more than enough to let it pass. If not Keep though, i would suggest Move back to Draft namespace. Lor Talk  01:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry Lor. You didn't give a reason as to why you accepted the article and it's still full of bad refs. You never answered how you read all of the supplied references in only 130 seconds, a message I left on your talk page. And if it fails, it should not be moved back to draft because editors like you continue to move it to main space without actually checking the refs! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming i have not done the most basic thing of checking the references in an article does not really make you case, i did read the references and deemed them good enough for Wikipedia (Reading them does not necessarily mean reading the content in them). Further more, you have not stated why they are bad references. Lor Talk 06:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the point, Lor. It looks to me like all you did was read that there were references, not click through to the reference links to see what was there. Even though there were two notes about previous AfDs and the edit history showing serious problems. Furthermore, you didn't read my original nomination: they do not provide significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To clarify that, most do not provide significant coverage of the subject. Some are clearly not independent of the subject. I don't see any that meet RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep [I have been asked to comment because I have been involved with the WP:AFC process and I suspect I commented on at least one of the prior AFD discussions, though I have not checked] I have read the article and the references. Some references are passing mentions. If the sources were simply a couple of passing mentions my view is that this would disqualify the article, but there are sufficient of those to add up to a couple of half decent references. I'd like to see fewer case studies and more media coverage. There are useful references, too. Those qualify it for a place here.
 * Having considered this as a whole article with all the references, rather than by disqualifying every references that is not, of itself, a large tract of significant coverage, my view is that the article is borderline, but is just on the right side of the border. It requires improvement in referencing, certainly, but I view there as being just sufficient to merit keeping the article.
 * It seems to me that the passage of time will allow more and better references to appear. Searching for them and adding them to the article is the area for the community to concentrate on, surely? Fiddle   Faddle  09:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep checking several references shows enough coverage, and independence. So this now easily passes WP:GNG. Last AFD I said the article was not ready, but it is good enough now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;Taking a look at the sources in turn (mostly for my benefit):
 * An (anonymous?) MS thesis, subject mentioned in two sentences and a table. (Sergey Uspenskiy, I assume we'll be crediting your work properly soon.)
 * Flint 2009. I looked at the paywalled version of the chapter.  Three sentences and four instances in tables.  The use of Cantata++ is incidental to the subject of the paper.
 * Wieczorek 2001. Two full paragraphs describing an earlier version of the software.
 * Mathur 2008. Single paragraph (modulo whatever gbooks isn't displaying).
 * Test 2012. Two sentences, does not describe the software.
 * QAsystems. Product documentation.  Reliable for uncontroversial details but not useful for notability.
 * Automotive Electronics 2012. Three paragraph notice concerning software release.
 * Emenda case study. Anonymous and undated.  This doesn't look independent but I'm not going to worry about tracking it down right now.
 * TVS case study. Anonymous and undated.  Same concern about independence.
 * Second Emedna case study. Cantata mentioned 11 times over 2 pages.  This really looks like the folks writing Cantata helped on the writing.
 * Meteonic. Not independent.
 * I very much agree with Fiddle  that this is a borderline article, but for me it falls on the other side of the border.  WP:NSOFT suggests software is notable if [t]he software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. The best WP:RS listed above describe this software as one choice among many.  This is a high bar for software outside the consumer space where reviews are few and far between.  However, without this additional material, we're left with articles that are based entirely on non-independent sources.  I do want to thank the editors who have worked to improve the article.  I have no issues with the writing, claims or length.  But based on the sources provided, I'm still not convinced the subject meets our guidelines for notability.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are numerous other book sources available, including one with 7 pages on it - see link above. Of course a source writing in depth about a previous version is valid to establish notability, as notability is not temporary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Cantata described in Ross 1996 is a "graphical substitute for the Unix shell". The software described in the article is an Eclipse plugin.  There may be a relationship, but based on what I have in front of me these are two different pieces of software that share a common name.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are probably right about that specific source, so my bad there about not reading more carefully. However, there is still what I would call significant coverage in Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security in addition to Wieczorek.  Mathur is likely more than a paragraph as at least some text is clearly cut off from the GBooks preview. Those three should be sufficient for notability. Additionally, C/C++ Users Journal, Unix Test Tools and Benchmarks, and The C++ Report all look promising, but hard to say for certain from the brief GBooks preview.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope to be spending some time at the libraries of UOregon and UCB next week, so if you get me a list of sources you'd like me to track down I'll see what I can do. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your assessment lines up with mine. Thanks for looking at the sources in such detail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to determine the length of coverage in, , and . Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - the problem with saying 'x' paragraphs in 'y' sources is that it ignores context. In this case, the software's claim to importance is in its widespread use in civil engineering. However, those claims are largely unsourced or have brief mentions. Sources need to verify things that make this software recognised enough by the wider world. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How do we determine if something is (sufficiently) well known to warrant an article? I would say evidence of coverage by RS is much better evidence than a source saying something is well known. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The question, and indeed one of the main sticking points for all complicated AfDs, is what qualifies as "significant coverage". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * MoveI have been involved in past deletion discussions and would like to acknowledge the recent contributors to this article for the great improvement. But, I think that it should be moved back to the draft namespace. StudiesWorld (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You said keep, which means keep the article in main space, but stated move it to draft space. Which is it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, haven't been on Wikipedia in a while. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To StudiesWorld, now your "vote" shows as "Move", but that would imply you wish for the article to be renamed and moved to a different title in mainspace. I think your vote (and that of anyone else seeking to "userfy" or move to Draftspace the article), would be better termed "Delete":  you want for it to be deleted from mainspace.  Copies of any deleted article can be provided to userspace or to draftspace;  that is routine and is not up for discussion in this AFD.  I don't have a position about this article yet myself. -- do  ncr  am  14:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, "move to draft" and "userify" are standard !votes, distinct from "delete".
 * Normally, one would !vote move to draft if he/she felt the article had severe problems that could be fixed (and then the article returned to mainspace). Your comment makes it sound like you think the article should be permanently placed in draft, which isn't an option.  What do you hope to accomplish by having it put it draft space? --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Editor ThaddeusB mentions a reference of "7 pages (The Handbook of Software for Engineers and Scientists)", presumably an article in a handbook of that name, but I don't find that specifically named or linked in the current article or in this AFD discussion.  Searching on "handbook" within the article gets no hits.  Could a more specific reference be provided? -- do  ncr  am  14:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here. It appears to be an unrelated language that happens to have the same name.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said above "my bad", that specific source (which is named in this AfD for the record) is about a different piece of software. The rest of the sources I named/linked above (some used in the article, some not) do constitute sufficient coverage to establish notability, however.  Sources existing, not being used in the article, is what determines notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To User:ThaddeusB, I think you could make your case better. This AFD discussion is pretty confusing to read.  I think it would help within an AFD discussion for you yourself to amend your original comment, if you later realize it is incorrect, by strikeout (perhaps with parenthetical explanation).    Here, you state/imply there's a listing of sources that you named/linked somewhere above, but I find no such list.  I do see a couple unlinked sources named by you within your first "my bad" statement:  quoting you: "However, there is still what I would call significant coverage in Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security ..."),  Also earlier you mention 3 books that were or are linked from the article, but don't identify which they are.  And the article has been changed during this AFD.  It's really hard to follow.
 * About the apparently-different software named Cantata covered in the 7 pages of the Handbook, the article should be revised somewhere near the top to mention that there was/is a different software product named Cantata that does something else (what?), but it is not the subject of this article. Probably with footnote to the 7 page treatment.
 * I'm not going to try to sort this out any further, in order to "vote". Bye. -- do  ncr  am  21:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reading the article and having a look at the distinct! sources the article shows a good potential to be improved over time. There has been a lot of relevant and informative edits over the last two years which valorized the article. But, I also agree with you that the article still shows some (smaller) problems/inconsistencies of the references, which could be fixed over time. By the way, did you get anything in the library ? SimonBauer7 (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you were directing that question at me. I struck out at UOregon and UCBerkeley wasn't open this weekend.  At this point, I expect we can close this as no consensus or keep, either one of which would be reasonable.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or delete and salt. The sources are not sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for reading the article and giving your opinion about it. First of all I agree with you that every article in the WIKI could be more improved at anytime, so also this one. But as you can see I (tried to) improve(d) it over a long period of time and also followed the instructions of several experienced wiki users/authors. I enlarged it enormously and found a lot of qualified references for supporting the content but never got a real helpful support from the opposing party. Furthermore I compared the article to some other software articles, which are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unit_testing_frameworks to get to know how other authors establish software articles. There are a lot of software-articles listed which even don't show more than three NON-objective sources, any good description or any further information about the use of the software. So, I am asking myself why nearly every other article "survives" in the wiki encyclopedia but not mine?! You can find a list of them here: I am very disposed to get some more help for improving it over time. Looking forward to it, QARon (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_C%2B%2B_Mocking_Framework
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasoft_C/C%2B%2Btest
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SafetyNet
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessy_(software)
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit%2B%2B
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment - CSDed two of the above, PRODded one other. List of unit testing frameworks is a total train wreck of a list. Yes, software articles are, I find, one of the biggest problem areas on Wikipedia and also one of the least consistent. There are just so many niches that fly under people's radars, often not even linked from any other page. Everyone once in a while someone stumbles upon one which leads to some related problematic pages, but in the end someone's always kind of irritated (understandably) because there are so many other articles with similar problems that aren't being deleted. That's the basis for this essay. Bringing them to people's attention as above is one way that happens. Otherwise they would just sit there and be terrible indefinitely, displaying some text copied from the company website and a list of features with no sources, for example. I digress. The present case is a toughie. Certainly not one like those listed above. There are sources here, but it's not a slam dunk by any means. I was leaning weak delete but I think I'm going to leave it at a comment in order to say that, although the refs aren't great, they're not too bad and I think it's very promising that there are people who show a vested interest in trying to improve it according to Wikipedia standards. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 05:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see the landscape of sources here has been much different than the last time this was deleted. What led me to think it met the AfC 50/50 criteria some time back was the belief that the paragraph and diagram at, describing (or so I believed) the generic pattern of usage of the tool, rather than a single use case, and could be construed as our second source in addition to Wieczorek. Arguable in any case, but at least you have a link the the only source I haven't seen mentioned here. --j⚛e deckertalk 06:43, 9 February 2015 (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.