Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChucK


 * 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 keep. This article undoubtedly has significant problems dependent, as it is, in large part on sources written by the application's creator. There is a clear division of views between the deleters who regard the independent sourcing as clearly inadequate and the keepers who are of the opinion that there is enough there. The Oxford and Cambridge references, for example, have split opinion over their status. What is clear, however, is that there is no mandate for deletion and, though we don't count !votes, there is, in my view, a sufficient majority for 'keep' to tip the balance away from 'no consensus'. The best way forward is now to use normal editing methods; a 'merge' discussion could be opened on the talk page, for example, and those parts that are clearly inadequately sourced could be tagged or removed. I would, however, counsel that any large scale excisions should first go to the talk page. TerriersFan (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

ChucK

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it's in both the The Oxford Handbook of Computer Music ISBN 0195331613 and in The Cambridge companion to electronic music ISBN 0521868610. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Cambridge Companion is not useful for establishing notability. I was able to find the relevant section online at Google books.  It's titled, "A history of programming and music" and the author is GE Wang, the creator of ChucK.  He does describe Chuck on pages 69 and 70, but again, that's his own description in his own words of his own work and completely useless for establishing notability.  Msnicki (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Oxford Handbook does appear useful, but not strong. Google books has this one online as well and it looks like ChucK gets mentioned on 5 pages, not counting footnotes and references.  On two of those pages, the mentions are completely incidental inclusions in lists but three of the pages are more meaningful.  Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Cambridge Companion is not useful for establishing notability". I disagree. He would not be invited to write that book chapter if his stuff wasn't notable. Anyway, there's a paper by Alan Blackwell and Nick Collins in the ref section now which compares ChucK with other music/sound languages, as well as some GUI products. This isn't a commercial product, so I don't expect it to get coverage in magazines that live from paid ads. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, if anything should be done, is to merge this article with Ge Wang, who is clearly notable having an article in the New York Times ("From Pocket to Stage, Music in the Key of iPhone") as well as IEEE Spectrum (Ge Wang: The iPhone's Music Man) about his iPhone music software (Smule/Ocarina). FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

From Wang's "Designing Smule's iPhone Ocarina" I see that Smule's Ocarina is basically an app in ChiP (ChucK on the iPhone). FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that Collins' 2010 Introduction to Computer Music has "a selection of popular computer music programming languages": Pd (Pure Data), Max/MSP, SuperCollider, Csound, Common Lisp Music, ChucK, Impromptu. All seem to have Wikipedia articles. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Msnicki (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES, another wonderful WP:ESSAY. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is about the invalid justification to keep something because other articles like it exist. That isn't what is being done here though.  If a notable book says this is a popular computer music programming language, then that does count towards its notability.   D r e a m Focus  05:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * But those other articles may not have sources to establish notability, either. They look pretty questionable, too!  It's not like the comparison is to C or FORTRAN, languages whose notability has been established beyond question by a bazillion independent secondary sources.  Also, I note that in citing WP:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES, FuFoFuEd is citing an article he just wrote, just so he could cite it.  (Look at the history.)  This is ridiculous.  Msnicki (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Related discussion may be found at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Msnicki (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep "The Cambridge companion to electronic music" has to pass through CUP's quality control, including at least one external review, and has two editors who are not Ge Wang. It is fine as a secondary source. Francis Bond (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing WP:RELIABLE with WP:INDY. WP:GNG requires independent sources to establish notability.  Once notability is established, primary sources can be used to establish other facts in the article.  But no amount of reliability (e.g., because the article was peer-reviewed or published by an impressive imprimatur, etc.) can substitute for independence in establishing notability because notability is all about what other people say. Msnicki (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that the book coverage others have mentioned, does establish notability.  D r e a m Focus  05:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Google book search for "ChucK" and "computer music" and "programming language" gives ample valid results. The first is it being mentioned at the International Computer Music Conference by the Computer Music Association, they giving it a few pages of coverage there.   D r e a m Focus  05:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:GHITS to see why that reasoning is invalid. Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My point was a lot of books mention it. Different argument than saying how many hits something gets on Google in general.   D r e a m Focus  05:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is the same thing. Google hits are not useful in establishing notability no matter what sort of Google hits we're talking about.  You're welcome to use Google if you think it'll help you find sources, but if you want them to count, you need to cite them in the article or at least specifically identify them here so that each source can be considered.  Msnicki (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Canvassing, as seen here, is inappropriate, especially when the message borders on personal attack.  Msnicki (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a hard position for me, but with the exception of a very small passing reference in the "Practical Ruby" book, all the other book references are academic articles that are primarily written by the author of the language.  At best the small reference to the language in the PLOrk demonstrates it's outside of the original campus, but still not enough to show it's independent notability. Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A fairly long paper about it in the 9th International Conference of Music Information Retrieval here. There are also numerous other results for it in Google Books, as Dream Focus noted above. There's this. This is a very highly cited paper about it. You can also find numerous other papers about it on Google Scholar. Thus, it meets the GNG and clearly refutes the nominator's rationale. Silver  seren C 05:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ge Wang is one of the authors of the first and third sources you linked, meaning they're not independent and not useful for establishing notability. The second is only a minor mention on a single page.  Msnicki (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the main point is that the papers by Ge Wang are well-cited. Silver  seren C 05:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wang's papers don't count toward notability and neither do a lot of citations of Ge Wang's papers. To establish notability requires independent sources actually saying something about ChucK in their own voices.  Msnicki (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way would citations, other than self-citations, not count towards establishing independent notability? Note that you only cite other papers in your own paper if you (usually briefly) discuss the work presented in the cited paper. —Ruud 22:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * An argument there are lots of citations is not unlike an argument that there are lots of WP:GOOGLEHITS. It's possible that among them may be something that actually does contribute toward notability.  But the guidelines don't allow us to simply hand-wave that it's a big enough pile that there's no need to look for anything specific.  If you want a mere footnote to count, you need to identify it specifically &mdash; and it better be one hell of a footnote!  See also WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:GNUM.  Msnicki (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. "Google hits" is a flawed number because it includes duplicates, many false positives and a hit does not necessarily/usually not correspond to "coverage" and will include coverage by unreliable sources. The number of Google hits can and usually will differ by orders of magnitude from any reasonable metric for determining the amount of sources covering a subject. Citation analysis on the other hand is much more accurate and each "hit" will generally correspond to a unique reliable source covering the subject in question. Google hits overestimate, citation counts underestimate. —Ruud 15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;Some independent secondary sources have been provided.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The secondary independent sources are very minimal mentions, not enough to show notability. Hasteur (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. One of the sources offered is a PC Magazine article titled, "Laptop Orchestra Makes (Sound) Waves", that does little more repeat a bunch of quotes, including 6 sentences about ChucK, from a single source, Trueman.  Surprisingly, no first name or association is given but it seems likely this is Dan Trueman, who supervised Ge Wang's work including, apparently, his work on ChucK.  It would be nice to see better, more critical reporting.  Msnicki (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: third-party coverage would appear to be limited to a paragraph, a sentence and a few bare mentions (The Oxford handbook of computer music) & a second paragraph (PC Magazine) -- does not "address the subject directly in detail". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only one notability-establishing cite (PC Magazine); others are passing mentions or first-party. Insufficient to meet GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And how independent is that PC Magazine article anyway? It has a byline for the reporter but all she seems to be reporting is just whatever Trueman had to say about his own student's work.  We really need some evidence that people who don't have a connection to ChucK actually care enough to talk about it.  Msnicki (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we've established that you and I don't agree on how hard citations should examined as to their pedigree. I take a more permissive stance not least because it significantly reduces the amount of arguing-on-the-internet work (well known to be the worst sort of work yet invented by the human race) that I sign up for or demand of other editors.  Even from a permissive point of view, though, I still only see that one cite as being any use at all, so it comes out the same. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Articles by the author do not support notability assertions, and I'm not seeing coverage from independent sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or explore some type of merge solution with the article on Ge Wang. Between coverage of ChucK's designer and the platform itself, there seems to be sufficient notability for inclusion. The "Programming Language as a Musical Instrument" essay incorporates significant coverage of the platform which, taken in concert with other coverage (of varying degrees and quality, it must be said) of the platform itself, and coverage of its creator, suggests to me that notability exists. I mention merging as a possible outcome because the creator and his creation appear inextricably connected in much of the coverage. Interesting case here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment ...I might almost qualify the above as a "weak" keep vote. This really is pretty borderline, in my opinion. There's a great deal of verifiable content in the article, either way. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Peer reviewed and cited reliable sources available. The Oxford Handbook of Computer Music and The Cambridge companion to electronic music establish independent notability. Seems to pass WP:V and WP:N. —Ruud 15:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Cambridge source was written by the Ge Wang, who created ChucK; there's no way that's independent. And the Oxford citation is little more than a mention spread across 3 pages scattered through the book, also not a strong source, certainly not enough to satisfy the WP:GNG requirement for significant coverage.  Msnicki (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Oxford source, I think we disagree on what constitutes "significant coverage". In my opinion (although I have to admit I have not actually checked the source) a simple mention would be sufficient to establish "ChucK" is serious academic project and not something invented in highschool on a afternoon. Regarding the Cambridge source, Ge Wang was not the editor of this companion. This model (editor + multiple authors) is quite common in academic literature: the editors make sure the work as a whole is accurate, but invite subject-experts to write the various chapters concerning the field they are an expert in and by extension their own work. This makes this source much more independent than a self-published book. —Ruud 21:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you cite anything in the guidelines to support your opinion that as long as Wang's article appears in a book edited by others that it is now suddenly independent? I don't see how.  Nowhere do I see an exception to the requirement for independence just so long as a source was peer-reviewed or printed in a scholarly book.  But maybe I missed it.  A link to the appropriate section of the guidelines would be appreciated.  Msnicki (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a only a guideline, it doesn't anticipate for every possible situation, and doesn't overrule common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruud Koot (talk • contribs) 07:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So the answer is, no, there's absolutely nothing in the guidelines that supports your position. Thanks for clearing that up.  Msnicki (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It might not explicitly support my position, it also does not contradict it. —Ruud 15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Msnicki. The question is not whether ChucK is a "serious academic project" or not, but whether it is notable. It is quite possible for it to be a "serious academic project", but obscure and non-notable (in fact it could be argued that most such projects are obscure). To demonstrate the it is a notable project you need "significant coverage" -- and mere mention does not cut it. HrafnTalkStalk(P)
 * We clearly have different interpretations of the subjective terms "notable" and "significant coverage". In my opinion an academic project which has been "noted" by peers is notable, while a toy programming language invented for Compiler Construction 101 would not be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruud Koot (talk • contribs) 07:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability defines notability as "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and significant coverage as "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" -- so I really don't give a damn about your idiosyncratic "interpretations" or "opinion" to the contrary -- nor do I give a damn about WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE arguments -- particularly when you offer no evidence whatsoever that the guideline in some way fails to anticipate the current situation, nor any evidence as to why "common sense" would overrule it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After all, if we allow idiosyncratic definitions of key terms, then we run into Humpty Dumpty territory: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” There's little point in arguing about whether a topic is notable if we aren't willing to accept (at least for the sake of the argument) the WP:CONSENSUS definition of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You will run into this problem with any definition that has not been made mathematically precise. You always need to argue over it's interpretation in any concrete situation. —Ruud 15:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you were not "argu[ing] over it's interpretation in any concrete situation" -- you were attempting to substitute a DIFFERENT AND FAR WEAKER definition: "In my opinion an academic project which has been 'noted' by peers is notable" -- which is not an "interpretation" of "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ruud has more experience here than most, so for him to take his "common sense" position contrary to the guidelines is surprising. In most other cases where people argue completely contrary to the guidelines, my suspicion is that they've just not read them and are unaware of the difference between the plain language notion of notability, that something is notable if it seems worthy of note, and the more technical definition used here, that something is notable if and only if others not connected to the subject have actually taken note and done so directly in detail in reliable secondary sources.  Msnicki (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's also an introductory article in Linux Format, which seems to be authored by someone unrelated to Stanford or Princeton. I don't a have subscription to that magazine, so I've just added it to Further Reading. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A geeky subject but still notable. Gosh how irritating are those who reel off all the "policies" under the sun to argue their cause.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Better an argument based upon policy than an argument by assertion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONSENSE is policy, WP:GNG is not. —Ruud 15:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bald rebuttal: NO, WP:COMMONSENSE IS NOT POLICY, it is a single section in an ESSAY (specifically WP:IAR). As such it provides no substantive basis whatsoever to not WP:Follow guidelines. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't appear that Ruud has read that part of WP:COMMONSENSE where it says, "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons." (emphasis added) Msnicki (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Common sense" is the more positively worded variant of "ignore all rules". I certainly made my argumentation based on relevant policies (WP:V and WP:N, although we differ on its interpretation) and interests of the encyclopedia (which benefits from an in-depth coverage of the current state of computer science). I can use my own common sense for my own vote. If everyone here does this the wisdom of the crowd will take care of the rest. —Ruud 17:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, no: your "argumentation" was based upon ignoring WP:N and substituting an idiosyncratic definition of notability ("In my opinion an academic project which has been 'noted' by peers is notable"). As far as I can see you have neither argued from any policy or guideline as written, nor given any substantiated argument why it would be "common sense" to "ignore" any specific rule. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep notable because there are references to it. Those who would reject articles because they don't quite meet the GNG but appear notable by some people's common sense have a considerable degree of difficulty when they want to reject articles that do meet it but which they do not think notable by other people's common sense. . This is usually handled by quibbling with the specific interpretation of the various words, such as "substantial" and "reliable". By quarreling about the references one can make any borderline article notable or non notable, whichever one wishes. Most !votes here on borderline articles are ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT disguised by the citation of policy, because if policy were clear there wouldn't be a serious argument about what side they fell on. The very fact of wanting to make an argument is a reflection of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT-- if someone does not personally think a subject notable though it meets the formal rules, they do not argue for it, but refrain from the discussion, and the opposite also.   DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "notable because there are references to it" = a special pleading to ignore WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage.
 * Claims that policy-based !votes are "ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT" is a GROSS violation of WP:AGF.
 * They are also WP:POT, given the fact that a far stronger case could be made that frequent and (pervasively) unsubstantiated claims of "common sense" as a reason for disregarding WP:GNG's requirements (pervasiely in favour of keeping articles) could far more easily be seen as WP:ILIKEIT.
 * I would point out that the main reason for having policies, the very policies that DGG denigrates, is to attempt to reduce the subjective ("ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT") components of these debates, and place them on an objective footing. Removing this (albeit flawed and frequently undermined) objectivity will simply turn AfDs into pure popularity contests.
 * HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have said it better. I agree with Hrafn.  DGG is welcome to argue that he believes the citations offered support notability, but it would be more helpful if he could identify which citations he's referring to and why he believes they meet the criteria.  The problem is, they don't, which may be why he talks "common sense" rather than evidence.  (As the lawyers say, "If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither is on your side, bang the table.")  Msnicki (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of special pleading, it does seem that happens a lot here, on Wikipedia. Look for instance at the bio of Gary Scavone and Articles for deletion/Gary Scavone. His biography was kept because he wrote some software that a number of editors (subjectively) thought was notable. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're looking at an AfD from 6 years ago. Consensus can change WP:CCC and as regards notability, it certainly has, over time.  Here's what the guidelines looked like in 2005 when that AfD was argued.  If the Scavone article were renominated for deletion today, it's entirely possible the result could be different.  Msnicki (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Asserts notability and backs that up with strong references in Oxford Handbook and Create Digital Music.  A  Train ''talk 10:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment While an assertion of notability is sufficient to disallow a speedy deletion, it should hold no weight in this discussion--spammy articles, for example, pretty much always assert the notability of the subject. So far, I seem academic work from the creators and their circle of colleagues, and passing mention in a couple of academic books covering topics of much wider scope. Pretty much any work in computer science gets this. For me, it doesn't count as significant coverage in reliable sources. The best thing to do with this would be to reduce it in volume significantly and incorporate it in an article about the author. Right now, the article is a mess and relies almost entirely on the papers written by the author, and if it remains, it will need a lot of clean up. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2011 (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.