Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tochnog professional


 * 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 delete. Consensus is that the sources provided and available do not constitute the in-depth, independent, reliable coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG, and that the topic is not otherwise notable. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Tochnog professional

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability for this software. Looking for reliable, secondary sources giving significant attention to this gave no results. It is mentioned in books on soil technology, but without further attention given to it.

Note that Tochnog, the free version available on sourceforge, looks to be more notable, and is discussed at length in multiple professional books. This article however is specifically about TochNog Professional, a different version where the code is not publicly available. So please, in deciding on notability, make sure that you use sources about Tochnog Professional only, and not sources about Tochnog in general (like this book. Fram (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see the list of references and examples in the article. All of these use 'Tochnog Professional', which is the topic of this article. So the previous remark ('no evidence of any notability' seems to be made without looking at the real evidence of notability, which is easy provided in the article itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 08:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

So just to be clear about the remark above 'use sources about Tochnog Professional only', that can easily be done by checking the examples and references listed in the article (done by many companies and universities around the world, including peer reviewed articles). These are not about the different free version which Fram talks about, these are in fact about Tochnog Professional, and that is in fact the topic off this article. Thank you for looking carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 09:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Random check, ignoring refs where you are one of the authors: this uses Tochnog 5.2; with a link to a website which is for sale. No indication that this is Tochnog Professional. This one dioesn't mention Tochnog. This one mentions Tochnog twice, not Tochnog Professional. This one, same author, mentions Tochnog once, not Tochnog Professional. (Even so, they are passing mentions, not sources about Tochnog). Fram (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

this refers to an old website, the new website is given in the article, I think that a website changes does not obstruct 'notable', this can easily be verified with the internet wayback machine by example: https://web.archive.org/web/20180214183011/http://www.feat.nl/

I will provide in the next few days here explicit information where 'tochnog professional' is really used and results are discussed, so not just mentions, and not just some random checks, I try to limit sources for convenience to directly verifiable links

1. https://soilmodels.com/tochnog/ (not just mentioning, but actually discusses program capacilities)

2. http://web.natur.cuni.cz/uhigug/masin/umat/node6.html (discusses how to use user supplied routines in tochnog professional, prague university)

3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/gete.201900020 (discusses tochnog professional use in groundwater, dresden university, rwe company)

4. https://www.issmge.org/uploads/publications/1/21/STAL9781607500315-2334.pdf (tochnog professional use in vibrocompaction discussed, dresden university, please notice that some people use 'tochnog' as abbeviation for 'tochnog professional', but this paper also mentions 'tochnog professional')

5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300521508_Analysis_of_displacement_patterns_during_an_excavation_using_different_constitutive_models (discusses in detail real use of displacement patters using tochnog professional, dresden university)

6. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40515-020-00108-9 (real usage discussion of tochnog professional for stone columns, dresden university)

7. http://gepro-dresden.biz/tl_files/inhalte/Publikationen/2013-09_Wegener_Herle_Akkumulation%20bleibender%20Verformungen.pdf (deformation analysis using tochnog professional, discussion and results, gepro company and dresden university)

8. http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/223822/local_223822.pdf (creep analysis, numerical results with tochnog professional, chalmers university et. al)

9. http://www4.hcmut.edu.vn/~cnan/CT%20tren%20dat%20yeu/GEO_OF%20SOFT%20SOILS%20PAPER%202008.pdf (geotechnics of soft soils, bundle of papers, one with tochnog professional, notice that they refer to our old website www.feat.nl, so user talk can here see that tochnogprofessional was previously located on the now old website www.feat.nl)

10 https://books.google.nl/books?id=Q8TECQAAQBAJ&pg=PA429&lpg=PA429&dq=%22tochnog+%22+finite+element&source=bl&ots=ZJMSHLXXvW&sig=ACfU3U1ACiPuo49NGQOsuwh8cHzW_TKuQQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjct6Kuh7HqAhVmMewKHXjCDrk4ChDoATAEegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=%22tochnog%20%22%20finite%20element&f=false (pipe-soil interaction analysis with tochnog professional, actual usage and results discussion, company d'appolonia italy)

11. https://www.geolink-geotechnik.de/fachthemen/software/ (this link demonstrates that the company geolink actually uses tochnog professional since they link to www.feat.nl (our old web page), as explanation for user Fram who talks about pdf's using the word 'tochnog' and not 'tochnog professional')

12. https://books.google.nl/books?id=a6VptRd9ZHYC&pg=PA396&lpg=PA396&dq=tochnog+professional&source=bl&ots=eoFEWOYeG5&sig=ACfU3U2xK-q8c6avyXZ_Gb_yTB4NQ8dNRw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjakOWMi7HqAhVJ6qQKHUN3CmA4ChDoATAIegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=tochnog%20professional&f=false (actual usage and results with tochnog professional, notice that they refer to our old webpage)

13. http://www.svair.com/downloads/docs/pdf/research/SM_CaG09_earlyview.pdf (stochastic soil analysis with tochnog professional, prague university, actual usage and results discussion)

14. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:950e7ccd-1b18-4530-866d-5dd662fe0fa4/datastream/OBJ/download (railway dynamics, thesis at Delft University of technology, numerical actual usage and results with tochnog professional)

15 http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:57111d23-63b4-4110-bbc6-52f5f7929911 (pile installation, thesis at Delft University of Technology, usage and results with Tochnog Professional)

16. https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/wis%C2%ADsen%C2%ADschaft%C2%ADli%C2%ADche-r-mit%C2%ADar%C2%ADbei%C2%ADter-in-m-w-d-eg-13-tv-wissenschaftliche-r-mitarbeiter-in-hochschule-hochschulabschluss-bachelor-uni-at-universit%C3%A4t-kassel-1902469986/?originalSubdomain=de  (job offering, Kassel University Germany, Tochnog Proffessional knowledge wanted)

17. https://odr.chalmers.se/bitstream/20.500.12380/220779/1/220779.pdf, chalmers university sweden , numerical analysis of embankments )

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

--->>> more to follow soon

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 11:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a bit hard to take this list serious if the first one on it, this, is a page written by you (creator of the article, owner of Tochnog Professional). The second source seems to have little value in determining notability, it is part of some online material for a course (I think?) Third source indicates that Tochnog Professional was used, yes, it is not a source about Tochnog. Fourth source again indicates that they used Tochnog Professional... What is needed are sources about Tochnog Professional, not sources indicating that they used Tochnog Professional. Fram (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

To comment: Yes: - first one on list: they took from our information (not much I can do about that, but if you want that removed just tell me, i remove that one) - second: no not part of a course, as I explained they show how to use user supplied routines in combination with the program - third: It indeed discusses usage and results with the tochnog professional program, to show that your suspect 'it is not used' since you said that you could not find that, is not correct - fourth: it is about Tochnof Professional, it discusses what the program can do, and how results are in a calculation (to see that something is notable becomes clear when it is actually used, and discussed) I propose that someone with real software experience, or experience with numerical methos, enters this discussion. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 12:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Where did I claim that the software isn't used? I don't think I ever said this (or even that I suspected this), I said that sources showing that it is used are not helping to determine whether it is notable software or not. Fram (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

See your text 'Note that Tochnog ...and not sources about Tochnog in general'. You only talk about evidence you found for 'tochnog'. You did not talk about any evidence you found for 'tochnog professional'. You at least make the suggestion to readers of this discussion that it can not be found (did you look carefully?), and at least did not help readers of this discussion to make a fair opinion. If you want to help the readers of this discussion to make a fair opinion you should not only give information about another program, but you should put effort also in finding evidence of the usage of the program of the article, and show that to readers of the discussion. You only talk about one mention of the 'tochnog professional' program that you found, that gives no further discussion. You did not put effort in finding other references which do indeed discuss application and results with the program; again, that does not help others in this discussion to make a fair opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

So as I see it: - if you searched for 'tochnog professional' carefully you should have included references about that in the first place, to be fair - if you did not search carefully, and I provide references, you can say 'i did not look carefully, so I missed references' - other readers of this article can easily verify themselves how difficult it is by doing a google search "tochnog professional" themselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 04:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, while there aren't a lot of freely available sources that actually talk about Tochnog Professional, I think it is better to err on the side of keeping this article. It is obviously a niche tool, and I am not an expert in numerical methods, but I think Wikipedia should have articles on niche subjects with decent sources, and this article has some decent sources. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the article is far too technical plus it seems to be advertising, either tidy it up or delete . --Devokewater (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete edited by a single purpose account this is just advertisng/ PR --Devokewater (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The information removed by user Devokewater is not advertising. That information shows clearly what the software program is meant for (just like the purpose of any other software program is also explained). And the references show interested readers where further information can be found. So the removed information was of valuable importance to interested readers of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 09:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

For better understandg, see by example the wikipedia for a similar program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIANA_FEA There are similar lists of capabilities, and corresponding references. That helps a reader understand what a program does, and where to find more information. I do not understand why for this article that should not be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 10:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a technical manual, plus there is a conflict of interest with RoddemanDennis edits has you appear to own the business, which is against Wikipedia's rule. --Devokewater (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia talks about software programs, and what they can calculate. See by example the diana_fea page and other FE programs. The list was program capabilities, and NOT how to do the calculations. Nothing in the list is a manual. If specifying capabilities of programs cannot be done, articles about software programs would loose most value. 2. I declared the COI in this article. User Jac16888 moved that declaration of the COI to the talk page. I guess he is an editor, and knows where it should be placed. Ask him if you want it back in the article itself. For me, its ok to put it everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddemanDennis (talk • contribs) 18:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment if the competitors of Tochnog professional, such as DIANA FEA have a wikipage then it's a bit unfair if this one is deleted. At the moment it appears to be advertising plus a technical manual, not a wikipage. This article needs to be tidied up by independent editors. Devokewater (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article promotes a software product, and describes its use - it has no independent assessment of it. It has been written by an owner of the company that developed and sells it. The references are primary research papers which (I assume - I am unable to check) acknowledge use of the software, rather than discussing it. The existence of articles such as DIANA FEA does not warrant the existence of other equally poor articles - see WP:OTHER. If this unfairness is a problem, DIANA FEA should also go to AfD. Maproom (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Question for User:RoddemanDennis: From your 53 references, please could you select and present us with just three or four urls that link to independent, external sources that you believe will show us how your program meets our essential notability criteria, explained at Notability (software)? It sounds to me like you have produced some amazingly useful software which is utilised in many essential areas around the globe, and nothing we discuss here can ever undermine that. But there are millions of technical programmes and bits of sophisticated equipment in use around the world, but none of these will meet our notability criteria if there isn't anything to be found within in-depth reviews or publications. All else will be seen as WP:PROMOTION, I'm afraid, and there is no place for that here. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: .) . Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, did you see the more short easy clickable list above here (the list 1-17)? You could use numbers 7 (paper dresden university), 14 (thesis delft university), 15 (thesis delft university) and 17 (paper chalmers university). The numerical equations and numerical results are with the program of the article (tochnog professional). Thank you. RoddemanDennis (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I'm really sorry, but if those four sources are the best you feel you can point me to, then I'm afraid your article completely fails to meet our notability criteria in my view. All each one does is demonstrate that your software is used for a variety of high-level data processing or analysis (which I won't pretend I understand), and none of them describes, reviews or compares your product in any significant way that Wikipedia requires. We would call all these 'mere mentions', and that would still be so even if some of the world's most momentous decisions happen to be based upon them. So I have to conclude that the only option for this article at this time is delete. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Looking at the discussion above, it seems like while there are sources, the coverage is not significant, which means it fails WP:GNG. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 00:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per current policy; the sources provided look good, but on ins[ectin give neither heat nor light. They comprise WP:MILL, SPS, primary or passing mentions. Fails NCORP and BASIC; also pretty much flying in the face of WP:NOTMANUAL. ——  Serial  18:25, 19 July 2020 (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.