Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marionnet

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Marionnet

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Marionnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The best source I see is a conference paper by the authors ([1]). They published a follow up few years later I think ([2]). I am not seeing much impact or significance of this project, and frankly, the article seems to acknowledge the small impact of this: "The system is now in active use in several universities" (in use how?), " Marionnet has been presented at two international Computer Science conferences, many French events[5] and at FOSDEM". For a French project, there is no French interwiki (I checked, I don't think it was ever written about there). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose:I think it is fair to object. Marionnet is still being used and in fact developed. Here is a very recent reference:

Mariotel: A Web-Based Virtual Remote Computer Science Lab J.V. Loddo, R. Kanawati ITHET'22 November 7-9, 2022

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-46315-4_1?error=cookies_not_supported&code=c044d7bb-80a6-4fa0-9ee3-fff9137d3fef

Rushed Kanawati's home page lists a papers about Mariotel, along with a public presentation in Germany: https://www-lipn.univ-paris13.fr/~kanawati/ The paper has been accepted but not yet published as of September 2022.

There has been another paper about Marionnet by Camille Coti, published in 2015: https://dblp.org/pid/78/4708.html Disclaimer: I have not read it.

Other disclaimer: I am Luca Saiu, one of the original authors. Am I in a conflict of interest? I am not sure. I am no longer involved with the project, Université Paris 13 (since renamed), or indeed France. --positron (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I do appreciate you disclosing the potential COI. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I am leaning keep here. Personally speaking this discussion has just revealed a tool to me that I would find very useful! But is that enough for WP:SIGCOV ? I am not sure. Yet it does get a mention as per the sources quoted above. I will try to find out a bit more about it before firming up my !vote, but the project is GPL free software so this is not a promotional piece. I think the Wikipedia project is probably better for having this page here. But thanks to the nom. for bringing it to my attention :) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - Marionnet being a last name makes it less than ideal for finding sources for this software, but in addition to the above sources I did find coverage in sources such as the Wiley-published Risk Propagation Assessment for Network Security. In addition this initial paper by the software's authors has been cited by 37 other papers with varying degrees of depth of coverage. Regardless of that, I think the above sources plus the Wiley book does give it enough significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to meet WP:GNG and arguably points 1 and/or 3 of WP:NSOFT's inclusion criteria. - Aoidh (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2022 (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.