Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critterding

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. Seems like most people here are not convinced by the sources presented, a case strengthened by the fact that neither of the two editors who didn't vote delete voted keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Critterding[edit]

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

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

Non-notable simulator, only one article found that discusses it besides its own websites and githubs AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source in the article, is a Russian language review of artificial life simulators that briefly mentions it. I can't find anything better. SpinningSpark 22:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment: (see new entry below) The 4 sources in the scolar link seems to contradict rationales given so far.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my delete on the basis of that, but I'm not convinced enough to positively !vote for keep. The most in-depth source is the one from Toni Vlaić of the University of Zagrab, but it is unclear what the status of this document is. It may be lecture notes rather than a published paper, so reliability may be questionable. The paper by Jan Klusáˇcek has only a brief paragraph, and again the status is unclear. This may be a doctoral thesis, but it is unclear whether this is the published, accepted submission or a draft, or something else. It is not even clear which university this is. The OpenMPspy paper is behind a paywall, but it looks unlikely to have significant coverage. The thesis from Rok Ritlop of the University of Ljubljana has only a brief passing mention. SpinningSpark 23:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article seems entirely promotional for non-notable program WP:NOTPROMOTION - has not had "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" as per WP:ORGSIG or significant coverage - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: you have ridiculously overlisted this. The article has nothing to do with aviation and including on animal, environment, and organism lists as if these were real animals is a bit of a stretch too. SpinningSpark 08:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]

Spinningspark, yeah whoops. I initially thought it's an Aviation simulator. I'll remove it, if you haven't yet already. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at the same four sources given a rundown by Spinningspark above, and my assessment is that these do not constitute substantial uptake or coverage in the field (the Toni Vlaić one is indeed lecture notes, and the OpenMPspy one is a passing mention). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Above all else I am seeing a beta release (only?) and no development in last 4 years. Without really compelling supporting evidence (There are cases where a beta can be significant ... for example a protocol trying to get near perfect acceptance to enter mainsstream Linux kernel) that is WP:TOOSOON at least here. So I am moved to re!vote delete.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2019 (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.