Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MADNESS


 * 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. The actions of the major contributor to this AFD have been contemptable - full of badgering, and ad hominem arguments, PLUS all the quite-likely canvassed SPA's that is utterly inappropriate and shameful. When I reduce the AFD to the only non-SPA and truly policy-based arguments, we narrow the discussion down to a handful of valid entries. Take in toto, those few provide no specific consensus to delete at this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

MADNESS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable computer package. No evidence of independent coverage. No independent references. It appears to have won an award (this is the link given, this appears to be the best URL), however, this URL certainly makes this award look like a pay-per-play advertising event rather than a merit-based award. Note that there appear to be a number of completely separate computer systems called 'MADNESS,' see for example Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MADNESS (Embedded Systems). PROD removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The lack of uniqueness to the name 'MADNESS' is not justification for deletion. This is why Wikipedia frequently has "disambiguation" content on many pages. Jeff.science (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

R&D 100 Awards states that "the winners [are] picked by a panel of outside judges selected by the publisher and editor." If this is erroneous, then Stuartyeates should deal with that independently. It has nothing to do with MADNESS. Jeff.science (talk)
 * To be clear, we're judging MADNESS against the WP:GNG which requires in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that may come to light. I'm admit that googling this project is challenging due to the use of a common word as the name. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Google "MADNESS Robert Harrison", "MADNESS ORNL", "MADNESS multiresolution", or "MADNESS" plus any number of technically significant words found on MADNESS. Jeff.science (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also that you can find dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles that describe the algorithms and applications of MADNESS using Google Scholar with "author:g-fann MADNESS" and "author:r-harrison MADNESS" or "author:r-harrison multiresolution". Note that these are not "pay-for-play" journals (since you seem to distrust any legitimate recognition) but rather some of the most trusted non-profit journals in chemistry, such as the Journal of Chemical Physics. Jeff.science (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are some papers on MADNESS:
 * * http://link.aip.org/link/jcpsa6/v137/i10/p104103/s1
 * * http://link.aip.org/link/jcpsa6/v129/i3/p034111/s1
 * * http://link.aip.org/link/jcpsa6/v121/i23/p11587/s1
 * * http://link.aip.org/link/jcpsa6/v121/i14/p6680/s1
 * * http://link.aip.org/link/jcpsa6/v121/i7/p2866/s1
 * * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063520307000048
 * * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063520311001072
 * Are these not reliable sources? I can describe the peer review policy of Journal of Chemical Physics in vivid detail if necessary. Jeff.science (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * These are indeed reliable sources. But they're not independent reliable sources, as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * is a reference to MADNESS by someone who does not work on the project. Do you want third-party media coverage?  If that's the burden of proof here then I am going to propose to delete absolutely every software package on Wikipedia that doesn't have this.
 * See this discussion on a reputable science community discussion board by an independent expert Jed Brown referring to MADNESS.
 * See this for a notation of MADNESS by a renowned scientist in this exact area (wavelets in quantum chemistry), Stefan Goedeker. Here's another notation by an independent expert, C. J. Tymczak.
 * Here is another notation by someone from Peking University who does not work on the code either.
 * This is a review article on wavelet-based TDDFT written by some of the foremost people in the world in this area that cites MADNESS as one of the two codes in this domain.
 * Jeff.science (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know what else you want. This nonsense is exasperating. Do you seriously not having anything better to do? There are so many pages on Wikipedia in need of greater attention than MADNESS. Do you have a personal vendetta against Robert J. Harrison or something? Jeff.science (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you want to delete MADNESS, you need to take responsibility for scrubbing Robert J. Harrison of the references to this project, since you deem it unworthy of coverage on Wikipedia. Jeff.science (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) I'm trying to maintain the quality of wikipedia.
 * (b) If you give me a list of articles you believe need attention, I'll see what I can do.
 * (c) My interactions with the Robert J. Harrison article were some time ago but seem to have been both entirely positive and not supporting deletion in any way; I'm happy to walk you through them edit by edit if you're new here.
 * (d) I'm glad you added the link to Robert J. Harrison's article, because it seems like a suitable merge target. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (a) How does deleting articles such as this one make Wikipedia better?
 * (b) See anything involving US politicians.
 * (c) If you would like to add more organizational structure to MADNESS that better presents the content I've added there, please feel free. I've given you more than enough references online and in the scientific literature to create new content as you see fit.
 * (d) NO! MADNESS is a large software project with numerous contributors (see https://code.google.com/p/m-a-d-n-e-s-s/people/list) and should not be merged with Robert J. Harrison. Conversely, Robert J. Harrison is not synonymous with MADNESS because of his numerous leadership roles within the scientific community (most recently, http://insidehpc.com/2012/08/07/stony-brook-launches-institute-for-advanced-computational-science/) and his pioneering work on NWChem.  Why do you think that MADNESS and Robert J. Harrison should be merged?  This makes no sense to me. Jeff.science (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC) (edited for Civility Jeff.science (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC))

At this point, I would like to see this matter closed. I have refuted all of the criticisms in the following manner. Jeff.science (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-notable computer package. - In addition to the R&D 100 Awards, this package is noted as being mission-critical at two of the largest supercomputing centers in the world and it has dozens of references in the high-performance computing community, at least in the US.
 * No evidence of independent coverage. No independent references. - Numerous peer-reviewed publications document this code.  While they are written by the developers of the code, this is because they are the ones who are qualified to write about this.  I don't know what burden of proof Stuartyeates is using, but I believe that at least 50% of the software packages noted on Wikipedia do not meet it if MADNESS doesn't.  I have just now added half a dozen independent, third-party references to MADNESS.
 * Keep - I've not read most of the argument above, but whilst some of the sources added seem a bit trivial, there are enough good, solid mentions about the subject for this to be notable and verifiable. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm intrigued as to which of the sources above you see as meeting the independence requirements. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Being a fellow scientist I can confirm the sources Jeff.science is citing, and I am also of the opinion that the MADNESS code does fulfill the notability criterion mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.202.3.35 (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)  — 130.202.3.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete While there are some mentions of MADNESS floating around out there, everything I've been able to dig up so far fails WP:GNG. The "papers on MADNESS" that Jeff.science presents are not, in fact, papers on MADNESS.  What he is showing is a list of papers that are used as references in a single paper on MADNESS - this paper here.  Although this paper seems to be legit, a single paper on a given topic does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia.  Most of the other links that Jeff.science presents are PowerPoint presentations.  I don't know who they are presented to, and who they are presented by, but they do not seem to meet WP:RS.  It also doesn't help that the article as it is currently written contains no sources!  If anybody is able to present multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of MADNESS, then I would most certainly change my !vote.  I too am interested to see which sources Lukeno94 is referring to, as he seems to be an experienced editor with a good amount of AfD involvment.  I've looked through them all and don't see enough there. MisterUnit (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * MisterUnit You will now see that MADNESS has a more extensive reference list and more detailed description than almost every other quantum chemistry software package covered on Wikipedia (e.g. TURBOMOLE, MOLCAS, MOLPRO, GAMESS (US), etc.). I would appreciate it if you would change your vote now, since you said that you would do this if "anybody is able to present multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of MADNESS", which I believe that I have just done. Jeff.science (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * MisterUnit Do you have any response to my request to change your vote, given that I have "present(ed) multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of MADNESS"? Jeff.science (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * MisterUnit appears to be unresponsive regarding changing his vote in response to the appearance of exactly that which he claimed would cause him to change his vote. I don't see how this negative vote should continue to stand given the previous comments. Jeff.science (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

MisterUnit: "I don't know who they are presented to, and who they are presented by..." You can easily resolve this with straightforward research tools like Google and inspecting the hosting site names. I'm not going to do this for you, but you can't declare my evidence to be invalid on the basis of your refusal to avail yourself of such information. Jeff.science (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, by saying "I don't know who they are presented to, and who they are presented by..." I meant that I don't recognize the authors or audience of the presentations as notable and reliable figures, not that I didn't check to see who they were. For example, I don't find a powerpoint presentation by Junchen Pei at the School of Physics to be a reliable source.  Sounds like a bachelors degree candidate doing his homework.  MisterUnit (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Junchen Pei is a faculty member at an internationally known university. Would you please use facts rather than making baseless, pejorative remarks about people you don't know?  You're making it more and more evident that you're just a Wikipedia troll with nothing better to do. Jeff.science (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Since journal articles don't seem to be sufficient evidence that this project is relevant, perhaps MisterUnit and Stuartyeates find the following funding agencies credible citations of existence/importance: Jeff.science (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * DOE: SciDAC, Office of Science divisions of Advanced Scientific Computing Research and Basic Energy Science, under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in part using the National Center for Computational Sciences.
 * DARPA HPCS2: HPCS programming language evaluation
 * NSF CHE-0625598: Cyber-infrastructure and Research Facilities: Chemical Computations on Future High-end Computers
 * NSF CNS-0509410: CAS-AES: An integrated framework for compile-time/run-time support for multi-scale applications on high-end systems
 * NSF OCI-0904972: Computational Chemistry and Physics Beyond the Petascale
 * We're not after 'credible citations of existence/importance' we're after 'in depth coverage in independent reliable sources.' Stuartyeates (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Stuartyeates I don't know what you mean here. I've read many of the other Wikipedia entries for quantum chemistry software packages and do not see examples of this.  In nearly every case, the references are primary sources.  Can you please point me to a Wikipedia package for a quantum chemistry software package that includes "independent, reliable sources" so that I can understand what your definition of these is. Jeff.science (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage you to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which expressly addresses this class of argument. I have tagged a number of quantum chemistry software packages and WP:PROD'd and WP:AfD'd many software packages. Good faith, WP:BEFORE and practicalities mean I can only nominate some many at once. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Stuartyeates Please try again to answer this: Can you please point me to a Wikipedia package for a quantum chemistry software package that includes "independent, reliable sources" so that I can understand what your definition of these is. I am more interested in an example of how to add the appropriate content to MADNESS than your principled, but fundamentally useless arguments about why everything on Wikipedia sucks and there is not enough time in your day to delete all of it. Jeff.science (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even though jeff.science comes off as a bit emotionally vested in the issue, I believe his points are valid. There is no sense in deleting an article with about ten reliable sources discussing it, even if some are primary, and it is not our place to judge whether the award is a "pay-per-play advertising event". -Anagogist (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, WP:GNG. The 2011 R&D 100 Winner does it for me. -- Trevj (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP because it was recognized at the R&D 100. Jeff, I mean this most politely, I was leaning strongly to the delete side because of you. I know you were frustrated, and you are obviously new to Wikipedia, but you have to try to keep a cool head. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sue Rangell, I am upset that random people who don't seem particularly informed or qualified are trying to remove information from Wikipedia for reasons that are false at face value or have been extensively rebutted at this point. MisterUnit and Stuartyeates appear to be predators who attacked an article I co-authored on a whim and have extorted an extraordinary amount of time from me just to satisfy unjustified complaints. Jeff.science (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you genuinely feel aggrieved, I would encourage you to complain at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer, Stuartyeates. Unfortunately, I do not understand how to report you for assigning yourself an inappropriate level of authority to adjudicate the significance of a software project complete out of your field of expertise (as ascertained by LinkedIn and Google Scholar.  I only wish I knew what entity on Wikipedia can give you your McCarthy moment. Jeff.science (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Jeff.science has good points here. R&D 100 and use in numerous other international projects and broad recognition in the scientific literature is enough. Mallonna (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP I am a scientist, and Stuart Yates criticisms above are unfounded. The R&D 100 Award is reputable, and independently adjudicated. Furthermore, MADNESS is notable for being the only free software package using a wavelet discretization for this problem. Knepley (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP I am also a scientist working in the field and corroborate the statements made by Jeff.science and Knepley. The package has received significant outside recognition and has driven the development of innovative methods of great significance, both within quantum chemistry and in many related fields of computational science.JedKBrown (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The R&D 100, the scientific accomplishments associated with the project, and the fact, that as a side benefit the code generator produces useful linear algebra routines with exemplary performance (useful for many things outside the scope of MADNESS) suggest that it is not only a valid, but a noteworthy scientific accomplishment.  I liked the 80s ... I loved the "Our House" video, but, really, in the grand order, which is more valid/useful?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagunnels (talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I believe technical authority matters in this discussion, I'll add that Matt Knepley is a major author of PETSc and a recognized authority in massively parallel numerical simulation on at least four continents. Jagunnels (John A. Gunnels) has been a finalist for the Gordon Bell Prize six times, winning three times, and is an undisputed expert in supercomputing. Jeff.science (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I am a computational scientist, and MADNESS is a notable, widely used code within the community. Aron Ahmadia (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP I am a quantum chemist, computational scientist and computer scientist who is a developer of MADNESS, NWChem and Global Arrays, among other things. My technical authority on this subject is affirmed by numerous papers in this field (see my professional wiki for details).  I am obviously quite biased in this matter, but I assert that even with this bias, I am more credible than the few critics of MADNESS, namely Stuartyeates  and MisterUnit, who have no demonstrated technical authority in computational chemistry or parallel numerical software. Jeff.science (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Who is the ultimate arbitrator of this matter? There are only two dissenting parties: If the Wikipedia permits people like Stuartyeates to have editorial authority on content well outside their subject-matter expertise, it undermines the legitimacy of the entire project. Jeff.science (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * MisterUnit, who has failed to respond to requests that he change his vote since his stated burden for doing so has been met.
 * Stuartyeates, who has no demonstrated credibility to evaluate the importance of high-performance computing software, numerical libraries or computational chemistry codes, and who has been refuted by numerous experts during the course of this discussion.
 * In the fullness of time an uninvolved admin will close this WP:AfD, based on WP:GNG and the arguments put forward here. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is correct, and is how things work around here. -- Trevj (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Those who have mentioned the R&D 100 Awards above maybe interested to note that it was just nominated for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. -- Trevj (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree at all with the nomination of R&D 100 Awards for deletion or merger to R&D Magazine (which does not yet exist). That this award is not worth of mention on Wikipedia should not detract from the significance of MADNESS though.  There are plenty of notable awards not worthy of an independent entry on Wikipedia.  Frankly, Stuartyeates's arguments apply equally to Priestley Medal and he should propose that that page be merged into American Chemical Society.  Jeff.science (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with a proposed action, read the relevant policies and put your informed arguments on the page so that they're part of the consensus. Arguments put forward on this page in relation that that consensus are not considered. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC) STRONG KEEP: Peer-reviewed scientific papers and journals are what makes sciences work. The notion of peer-review assures that papers are reviewed by people with expertise in the field (Note: the field, NOT the subject - i.e Computer Science in the case) who were not involved in either the research, experiments or writing of said paper. That clearly allows scientific papers to be included as reliable independent sources. Indeed, if scientific papers were not considered as reliable independent sources then every single article on wikipedia that falls under science would require severe assessment of its sources. Also scientific papers are considerably more reliable that media sources and yet media sources are considered allowable? This article is a DEFINITE KEEP. douts (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am interested. It appears that the standard is "This is not well known, I have never heard of it". I myself have Googled it, does that make it "notable"? I find this obsession for categorization by people who do not understand things pitiful. It would be more productive to find someone who understands the content, and criticize from there. I can see several legitimate arguments that the content might be weak, but these have not been presented. In their place, we have a silly argument as to who knows about something. -- Knepley (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Notable" is measured according to the WP:GNG, as always on wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your dogmatic devotion to some supposed canonical interpretation of the WP:GNG sheds light on your thinking. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Knepley (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.214.164 (talk)
 * 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.