Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rigi (software)


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Rigi (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have no idea what this article is supposed to be about or why-it miserably fails GNG and is nonsensical. In short, it has no place being here.  Konveyor   Belt  03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook  03:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability from secondary sources. And with the lack of development the only real place for this I think is in a list of similar software rather than on its own, I think this could be done even without additional citations being found. Dmcq (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The reasons I gave above for deletion have been properly fixed. A merge somewhere might still be done in the future but it doesn't need to be considered within this AfD. Dmcq (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to provide a bit of background, the article/page was initially about a so-called "Mullergraph" . After I WP:PRODed that, another user thought he found some references about it, but it turned out that these 3 refs were not talking about the same thing as the prose in the wiki "Mullergraph" article. So I've deleted the "Mullergraph" bits, which is to say all of the original and unsourced (and probably unsourceable content) and moved the page to its present title. I'm not really sure if the Rigi software or the methods it uses is notable or not. The sources are obviously WP:PRIMARY. The 1990 (technique) paper has some 60 citations in Google Scholar, which isn't a whole lot, but it's not absolutely obscure either. I guess I'm neutral on deleting the Rigi bits. (see below for update 2). ¶ The technique that the 1996 paper is talking about, called SHriMP views — — was added to Rigi a bit later on and was initially was introduced in another system called (ahem) SHriMP, which Muller did not co-author. It does seem that SHriMP was incorporated in a few more bits of (academic) software, by other people, according to this review by Lemieux and Salois, which isn't however terribly clear who made the other software using SHriMP. But the current page doesn't talk at all about SHriMP, so it' okay to delete it even if SHriMP is notable. A redirect could be created later if someone were to write an actual article about SHriMP, as Rigi seems to be one of the tools to implement that (albeit not originally). From what I gather from the SHriMP paper, the methods used in SHriMP were inspired by the original Rigi, but they also improved upon it, so eventually SHriMP (as a techinique) was backported to Rigi, and this is what the joint 1996 paper [last citation in the wiki page] is talking about. The SHriMP views paper (not by Muller) has some 80 citations, so again not incredibly notable. I guess both qualify as run-of-the-WP:MILL academic projects. Probably stuff worth mentioning at software visualization because the review of Lemieux and Salois mentions them, but doubtful as stand-alone pages, unless more independent sources are found. Update: the book of Diehl covers SHriMP in its Creole implementation (this an Eclipse plug-in) on a few pages (a lot which is taken by big screenshots) pp. 67-71 . I also found a couple of paragraphs in another book about Jambalaya , which is a Protégé plug-in doing SHriMP for OWL stuff. So I suppose one could write a page about SHriMP in accordance with WP:N. JMP EAX (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have edited the article so that it now at least mentions the software and says what it is. I have also added two references to the literature.  The Rigi research group has a page listing some dozen conference papers and similar.  Are these enough to establish notability?  Deltahedron (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep A Google Books search for rigi software reverse engineering produces a first page of text books and conference proceedings, mainly independent of the software authors, giving reasonable coverage and commentary on the software in question, already enough for notability.  Deltahedron (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Update 2: Weak keep. I think that a lot of the citations are in passing (as academic citations normally are), but there are some papers devoted to integrating Rigi in projects of other authors, so these show a non-trivial level of third-party interest. These papers also contain a more extensive summary of what Rigi is/does. Specifically, I'm talking about  (free here) and . I'm not giving much weight in my assessment to books like  or, which also have half-page blurbs about Rigi, because they are low-quality (academic shovelware) sources in my opinion, even though they nominally count for WP:N as well. There also  which assesses Rigi in comparison with Refine/C, Imagix 4D, and SNiFF+, but the info there is a bit dated, so not really citable in the article (e.g. paper said Rigi was unstable). Also note Articles for deletion/Imagix 4D, since I've found that. JMP EAX (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was correctly pointed to me that one of the authors of the CSMR.2004 paper (K. Wong) is also a co-author on an older Rigi paper (with Muller), so the CSMR.2004 paper can't be considered entirely independent. JMP EAX (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was sort of called out on the carpet for failing to notice some little details like the difference between graphing machines and graphing software components... (though don't sites like Wikipedia run different components on different machines?)  In any case, I left the article in a really confused condition and I'd like to thank  and  for straightening it out.  My feeling is that when a free, well-published software tool exists we'd be fools not to keep an article about it.  The GNG is met. Wnt (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This clearly meets the standards for notability after the current improvements. Jacona (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Many of the references are written by the creators of the software but there are enough independent citations to satisfy notability requirements. ~KvnG 14:07, 29 July 2014 (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.