Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yovisto


 * 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. No secondary sources. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yovisto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

CSD G11 declined, so XfDing. Not finding sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  16:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of academic articles establishing notability . I am One of Many (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep - Passes WP:WEBCRIT per, , , , . NorthAmerica1000 19:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - every single one of those is a primary source written by at least one of the two founders. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment They are academic sources, which means that they were independently reviewed by experts in the relevant field, otherwise they would not have been published. So, they are reliable sources. I am One of Many (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable for the purpose of citations, sure, but that's not what we're trying to establish. We're trying to establish notability, and in that case the sources have to be independent of the subject. From WP:CORPDEPTH: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  20:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're correct. I have struck my !vote above, as primary sources do not establish topic notability on Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 22:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am One of Many, in addition to the independence problem, I think those are all conference proceedings, or papers from conference proceedings. While conference presentations are judged for inclusion at a conference, the associated papers are typically unedited and research unchecked by conference organizers, and receive nowhere near the scrutiny of peer-reviewed academic journal submissions. Conference papers can be sometimes be cited as reliable sources for some purposes, but they shouldn't be equated with journal articles. Agyle (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is sometimes true for conference proceedings but IEEE proceedings are often reviewed. In the Google Scholar search I linked to, it is used, discussed, or cited in hundreds of academic articles. This is how you measure notability in academia. If your work gets cited and used a lot, it is high notable. I am One of Many (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume you're using "notable" and "notability" in the generic sense above, not the Wikipedia sense; there are several metrics used in academia, and reference counts within various publication indices are often cited in measuring the importance of articles. I think the sheer number of references to a research paper in journal articles could establish notability of a person in academia by Wikipedia's WP:NACADEMICS criteria, but for organizations and products, depth of coverage is still important (WP:ORGDEPTH). I couldn't find a single independent journal article that includes the word Yovisto in more than one paragraph in the body of its text, and found only one that included it in more than one sentence, in a one-paragraph description of Yovisto:
 * I think you've overestimated the number of academic papers in any case; scholar.google.com includes many non-academic references, and if you just search for "yovisto", it also returns results for "yo visto", Spanish that might translate as "has seen" (try typing yovisto -"yo visto" in scholar.google.com to eliminate those). That knocks the occurrences down to maybe 100 independent sources; most are one-sentence mentions, many are only in the references rather than body of text, and many aren't articles at all. Ultimately, specific sources with meaningful coverage about the subject are more relevant than the google search result metrics. Agyle (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm using notability in the generic sense here. Wikipedia doesn't have adequate policies for academic and scientific areas of notability in my view, so my appeal is to common sense notability.  One criterion we can use is whether something is widely recognized in a specific scientific discipline.  This can be hard to determine, but citations are one indicator.  The fact that "yo visto" also comes up in Scholar searches complicates this kind of simple estimate, I agree, but Yovisto still seems to be cited a number of times, maybe 100 more or less, but I haven't counted.  So, when I ask myself whether an encyclopaedia should have an article on Yovisto, I have to answer yes from a scientific notability perspective. I am One of Many (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm using notability in the generic sense here. Wikipedia doesn't have adequate policies for academic and scientific areas of notability in my view, so my appeal is to common sense notability.  One criterion we can use is whether something is widely recognized in a specific scientific discipline.  This can be hard to determine, but citations are one indicator.  The fact that "yo visto" also comes up in Scholar searches complicates this kind of simple estimate, I agree, but Yovisto still seems to be cited a number of times, maybe 100 more or less, but I haven't counted.  So, when I ask myself whether an encyclopaedia should have an article on Yovisto, I have to answer yes from a scientific notability perspective. I am One of Many (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Did not find any independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Scholar.google.com returns significant coverage in several non-peer-reviewed conference proceedings, but they are written by Yovisto creators H. Sack and/or J. Waitelonis, and so are not independent. I confess I did not check every scholar.google result that contains the word Yovisto, as I don't have easy access to most of them, but I will follow this page, and may change my position based on newly proposed independent reliable sources with significant coverage that I overlooked. Agyle (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, plenty of sources, but absolutely zero that are independent of the site founders. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete, All of these sources were written by people close to the organization itself. I cant find any third-party sources that independently attribute notability. ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀ 11:55, 31 May 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.