Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DaviX


 * 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. (WP:NPASR). N ORTH A MERICA 1000 20:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

DaviX

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSOFT. References are a tutorial and an arXiv preprint, both from the authors of the software. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Four new sources from scientific reviewed paper have been added and three from blogs and online sources. These can be considered as reliable published sources. Firwen. Do you still consider WP:NSOFT as not respected ? (hm?) 22:03, 1 February 2015.
 * None of these papers have received any citations, except one, and they all come from the same group, so they don't count as independent in my book. The only paper that has received a handful of citations is the Dynamic federations one, which devotes only a tiny paragraph to DaviX. Looks like it's WP:TOOSOON for this software. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 22:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this serious ? This software is quoted in at least 4 papers, references in 5-6 independant websites and is used in at least 3 different frameworks / softwares ? Do you need to have a 10 papers in Nature or ACM to be in wikipedia ? This software is used by WLCG and the High energy physics community, deployed  at more than 120 sites / physics institutions... And it is a free software developped by a public institution: nothing commerical.... How is this not enough ?  Firwen.


 * You need significant coverage in the independent sources, not passing mention: benchmarks, analyses, critiques rather than "we used software X [courtesy citation]". Citation counts can be used as a proxy for such coverage (some citing papers will contain the coverage required), and the threshold is typically put at a few hundred or more. Re: independent websites, self-published sources like GitHub repos, StackOverflow posts etc. don't count; anyone can put software up there. Inclusion in Ubuntu isn't significant coverage, nor is use. There are myriad Linux device drivers that are deployed on millions of computers worldwide but don't warrant separate articles because nothing interesting is written about them. Commercial or free plays no role. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok I see your concerns. About "Benchmark, analyses, critiques", the paper "https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-319-13021-7_15" covers these topics with benchmarks and analyse of the performance of Davix versus an HTC solution", this paper has been peer reviewed and presented at the VLDB conference. DaviX is used by three independant scientific experiments ATLAS experiment, Compact Muon Solenoid and LHCb and consequently installed by more than > 120 of their cooperative physics laboratories worldwide. It has been distributed and packaged on 5 majors plateforms by official distributions channels (Official repositories) by different individuals: Debian, Fedora, Red Hat, Ubuntu and brew (OSX). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firwen (talk • contribs) 12:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * More external references have been added from the EGI project, the GRIDPP team, the HEP software foundation and the DMC CERN team.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 10:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * One more reference about daviX usage and softwares used at CERN added ( quora ). Firwen( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 20 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.