Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SableVM

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SableVM[edit]

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

I was unable to find any significant independent coverage of this. An article on the research group that created the software was deleted at AfD. There seems to be a bunch of unsourced articles relating to this research group. Michig (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=sablevm —Ruud 16:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how many of those (a) provide significant coverage and (b) are not written by people associated with the research group? --Michig (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More than enough. —Ruud 16:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? --Michig (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 206 articles don't you believe to be independent or provide non-trivial coverage? —Ruud 17:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the ones written or co-written by Sable's staff (E Gagnon for example) are not independent. If you want this to be kept I would suggest that you come up with some evidence that an article is justified. --Michig (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which are only a fraction of the 206 article listed. If you want this article to be deleted... —Ruud 17:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was important and much talked about at the time. I've added some refs. The other two articles up for AfD should be merged into this. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is this book a real book or compiled from wikipedia? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's compiled from Wikipedia articles. --Michig (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 04:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now shows a couple of peer-reviewed publications, and with Stuartyeates additions, a couple of secondary sources, one of which is in-depth. Ruud has shown about 200 hits in Google scholar, not all of which are from the SableVM research group. The topic seems to be notable and verifiable with some independent sources. Mark viking (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is the in-depth secondary source? It should be noted that papers in conference proceedings are often not peer reviewed to the same extent as journal papers. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally not true in computer science. —Ruud 10:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is in my experience. --Michig (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate on those experiences? —Ruud 18:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Stick to the topic under discussion. --Michig (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you make false claims concerning the quality of these sources I should be able to rebut those claims. —Ruud 18:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're out of line accusing me of making 'false claims'. Have a read of WP:AGF. --Michig (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, if someone claims that 1 + 1 = 3, I should not be able to say that he or she is making a false claim? What would you propose I do instead in such a situation? —Ruud 18:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from my talk page. —Ruud 19:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)) I'm loath to allow this AfD to be derailed into off-topic discussion. How about just accepting that someone else may have a different experience of academia to your own? I'm happy to accept that your experiences may be of rigorous peer review for conference papers, why can't you just accept that my experiences may differ? If you feel the article should be kept, fine. I'm not convinced. If someone can come up with a good argument for keeping then I would be happy for it to be kept, but I don't see it yet - the onus is not on me to prove that coverage doesn't exist - one can never prove that, only that insufficient coverage can be found. I asked which source is independent and provides significant coverage, simply because having looked through the sources I don't see one - maybe someone could answer that question? I'm fine with you having a different opinion to mine. Could you afford me the same courtesy? Thanks. --Michig (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been a more convincing argument if you phrased the statement as an opinion instead of asserting it as an unqualified fact. —Ruud 19:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See above: "It is in my experience". Clear enough, I think. In the interests of trying to keep this discussion on topic, let's leave it that shall we? --Michig (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel assured that anyone else reading this discussion will no longer be misled by the statement made above, so I no longer have a reason to continue this diatribe. —Ruud 20:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the Inquirer article, in-depth was an exaggeration--there is a paragraph on the SableVM project and it's proposed collaboration with Apache Harmony--but as one of two open source JVMs mentioned in the article, it's enough in my opinion. Regarding computing conference proceedings, I only have experience with the annual NIPS conference, which has a lower acceptance rate than some journals in the same field. In general, I imagine that different conferences have different levels of rigor. Variation in levels of rigor is also seen across journals. Mark viking (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, standards for both conferences and journals will vary. This is an interesting perspective on the variability of conference standards. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is notable, but article desperately needs a rewrite so that non-geeks can understand it and to wind back the WP:PEACOCK. 1292simon (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.