Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FLEUR


 * 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. (non-admin closure) WaddlesJP13 (talk &#124; contributions) 18:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

FLEUR

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotionally-written article. Speedy deletion was declined but I believe this article is WP:SPAM. WaddlesJP13 (talk &#124; contributions) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk &#124; contributions) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk &#124; contributions) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk &#124; contributions) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk &#124; contributions) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many articles on software projects similar to FLEUR. There are lists of such software projects linked in the article. Each article on such a software package describes the features of the respective code, just like the article on the FLEUR code. A google scholar search on the code's website, with which it is typically cited gives more than 600 results of scientific publications. This is a relevant number in the field. The list of these codes and the articles on each code are used by students and researchers who want to work in the respective scientific field to get a first impression on what tools they can use for their investigations. In my opinion deleting an article on one of these codes would somehow imply that the article is special in some way. I don't see that for the article on FLEUR. If there are inappropriate statements in the article I would reformulate them or look for references if there is none backing the statement. As far as I see for the statements in the article on FLEUR there are references in terms of publications in peer reviewed scientific journals. I would like to understand the deletion nomination. Could you please clarify the thought?

GreSebMic (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * To clarify, along with the article being written like its an advertisement, the article has an abundancy of inline external links to primary sources and the official website, used as a way to get readers of the article to visit the website, which should really only ever be included in the infobox at the official website parameter or under the "External links" section of the article for informative purposes. External links disguised as Wikilinks are usually an indication that the article is spam, or that the person who created the article is associated with the product or company. WaddlesJP13 (talk &#124; contributions) 17:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't aware of this external link guideline. I also didn't perceive this as a disguise. I now moved the link to the FLEUR code homepage to a new external links section and turned other external links into links to Wikipedia articles that still have to be written. These are all software projects that are in common use by many research groups and the option to combine them with the FLEUR code may be of interest to people interested in this wikipedia article. I guess at some point someone will write wikipedia articles on them. Before, I used the external links because that is how I saw references to these software packages in other wikipedia articles. I hope this resolves the external link problem in your sense. GreSebMic (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I just removed from the article a statement on the development of the code in the context of the European center of excellence MaX. Even though the statements were backed by references the wording may have sounded promotional. I think this already eliminates or at least reduces the case for the deletion.

GreSebMic (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment This looks like a pretty ordinary article on a piece of scientific software. I'm not a fan of long feature lists (they do tend to read like the back of a software box, back in ye olden days when programs came in boxes), but that's a matter of style, not grounds for deletion. The raw number of citations looks pretty respectable, though not all of them are useful for our purposes; abstracts for conference presentations aren't really peer-reviewed publications, for example. I'd be inclined to keep if we had a few examples of the software being used by people other than the developers. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be nice to add a few references on the usage of the code that are unrelated to the development group. Scrolling over the google scholar search list shows that there are many scientific articles that fall under this criterion. Finding nice examples that are not misplaced in such a wikipedia article is a different issue. I will look for a few publications, but that will take some time. Of course, some of the cited references in the wikipedia article are on methodological developments of the software. It is natural that you see people from the development group on such publications. GreSebMic (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I now added two highly-cited references of work with FLEUR code usage that are unrelated to the development team. One is a Nature Nanotechnology publication on graphene and the other is a Nature Communications article on certain physics in topological insulators. According to Google Scholar one has more than 1000 citations, the other one more than 200. I think these are nice examples for the code usage. Is this enough or do we need more? GreSebMic (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Any promotional content/tone can be addressed on the talk page. I personally am not a huge fan either of the feature lists, but this passes WP:GNG, for example the software is extensively discussed in this white paper on FLAPW methods. or this German article, along with its extensive usage. In general, I think there needs to be a new criteria for WP:NSOFTWARE since it is a fine line between legitimate accreditation and promotional fanfare. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep It's used in research that has been published in journals which are as good as we could ask for. While those papers don't go into depth on the details of the software itself, they do rely upon it in a significant way. I think there's enough to get it over the wiki-notability bar. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you all for the constructive feedback so far. I'm still pretty new in creating new Wikipedia articles. Your comments already gave me good instructions on what to care about in future articles and, of course, this article also already benefited from your feedback. I hope we can find a consensus on keeping the article. Of course, I will also try to incorporate further feedback in a constructive way. GreSebMic (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep this seems notable but it does need to be cleaned up a bit. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Open licensed software license in a seeming specialist scientific area which seems sustained over a large number of years now with some better sources identified. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant use in research.--Mvqr (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2021 (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.