Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AUX (AUdio syntaX)

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. Sandstein 15:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AUX (AUdio syntaX)[edit]

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

Minor special-purpose programming language. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Described in a peer-reviewed paper, but the number of citations of that paper is low (4 on GS, of which 2 self-citations).

PROD declined by page author Bjkwon. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this--I don't even know what PROD means. But after browsing policies and other articles, I agree with the concerns about the notability of this article, raised by Qwertyus. After all, it was not a good idea to write an wiki article of something I originally did. Please go ahead and delete the article. I'm sure, in the future, whenever it reaches its critical mass, this article will be written by someone with better sources for notability. Thanks! Bjkwon (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bjkwon: thanks for your understanding (and sorry for the jargon)! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "minor" and "special purpose" are not valid reasons for deletion. Also does WP:RS now ignore peer review in reputable journals in favour of citation counting. News to me. Explains our extensive Justin Bieber coverage though. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: there is precedence for using citation scores as a proxy for the available of secondary sources and for regarding authors' papers about their own inventions as primary. See, e.g., Identifier Network and in particular Mark viking's comment on mwetoolkit. I think David Eppstein at some point remarked that he wants published evidence that at least two groups have spent significant effort on a method/invention/software, and I tend to agree with that, although this is not a formal guideline. In this case, two citations are self-citations; one is a bachelor's thesis; the final one is a peer-reviewed paper that only acknowledges use of the software without providing in-depth coverage. ("Minor" is just my shorthand way of expressing this; "special-purpose" is descriptive, not a reason for deletion.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source we have on this is primary and has been cited only four times in Google scholar. Two of those four are papers authored or co-authored by Kwon, the creator of this language; one is a bachelor's thesis supervised by Kwon, and the remaining one is by a co-author of Kwon. Additionally, at least two of the four (including the one not directly involving Kwon) don't mention AUX itself, but rather mention (very briefly) the Psycon software package coming from the same reference. Re my suggestion mentioned above about publications by multiple independent groups: this is my interpretation of WP:GNG's "multiple sources are generally expected" as it applies in this case. Additionally, formal languages such as this one can be notable by other means than through academic publications and citations, but we have no evidence of this in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the sources David Eppstein mentions, there is also an announcement of the software in a book, but this is again primary and little more than a press announcement. I concur with David, there are no in depth secondary reliable sources discussing this software and barely any secondary citations (those, mostly in the context of Psycon). The software thus both fails WP:GNG and the software specific essay WP:NSOFT. Perhaps the language will catch on at some point and secondary reliable sources will develop. But until then, there are no independent sources with which to write an article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources independent of the author. Academic papers need decent citation counts to be significant. Any random person can write an academic paper, they don't grant notability by themselves. WP:ACADEMIC even states that google scholar (and many other paper search sites) lists a large number of papers that aren't in peer reviewed journals. ― Padenton|✉ 07:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Apart from the issues and concerns about notability commented above that I generally find acceptable, I would like to raise a point you all seem to overlook. Citation counts are not a proper measure of notability, because academic papers describing originally developed research tools are not cited as much as regular papers: papers that later utilize the tool for their own research and often opt not to cite the original paper because that was merely a tool, unless there is significant interest or need to describe the research methods in detail. While the legitimacy of this practice could be in question in a puristic sense, this practice is rarely a problem nor a violation of academic codes of conduct, so long as there is a consensus that neglecting to mention some names of tools used for a study in a paper does not compromise scientific rigor and integrity. This is similar to not citing MATLAB or Visual Studio in many engineering/technical papers (if the exact methods of computation carry far less weight than the study conclusion), even though those tools were clearly in use to accomplish the study goals. Sometimes some creators of research tools explicitly request citing the original paper to anyone using the tools (example in the similar nature: Praat) and nowadays citing software tools is considered a commendable and safe practice, so journal editors even welcome it, but, nevertheless, many tools (not only AUX but also many other tools) used by researchers are left uncited. Instead, very often, the tool creators are thanked in the acknowledgment section of the paper, which is, however, not searchable nor indexed and such acknowledgment is not repeated in the future (as opposed to the perpetual obligation, whenever relevant, of formal citation). By no means I try to promote the notablilty of AUX, which I recognize should be a lot more effective if done by someone else, but at least I wanted to raise this point---the limitation of google scholar search or google search in general. Also, for the record, the journal Behavioral Research Methods in which the AUX paper appeared is a reputable peer-reviewed journal published by a reputable scholarly society, Psychonomic_Society. It is not true that "any random person can write a paper" in such a quality academic journal---even though admittedly these days we are bombarded by so many junk journals where "any random person can write a paper" for a fee, I would do my homework first before making such a depreciatory comment toward a fine journal. Bjkwon (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2015 (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.