- 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. So Why 12:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
NeuronDotNet
- NeuronDotNet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NCOMPANY/ WP:NSOFTWARE/etc. was deprodded by creator User:Ajgorhoe who added several references, whose quality was subsequently criticized by User:Staszek Lem, who removed them (see Talk:NeuronDotNet). I agree that the references don't discuss the topic in depth, and are not enough to show notability, so the next step is a wider discussion here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This seems to be at least somewhat visible — Google scholar found 59 academic works that cite it — but among them I didn't find any with the nontrivial and independent coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- delete There is a huge number of useful tools which are free and used in the academia to some extent. I can name a dozen of graph matching programs or polygon triangulation packages off my head. They are given credit in scholarly papers which used them. But nobody makes big fuss about them just because they are free and used. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I see relevance of NeuronDotNet as one of early generally accessible libraries for ANN modelling, especially in the .NET realm. It is notable for its emphasis on modularity, which adds flexibility in combining different architectures and training algorithms. This may be the reason that it found application in engineering, research and derived software. A number of references that I have hastily included in [
this version] (and were righteously, at least what concerns the way they were added, criticized by
User:Staszek Lem), indicate use in rather different applications and for different purposes, which somehow supports the claims related to modularity. Some secondary sources do cover the subject, though maybe not to large extent. I would say this situation is inherent in software libraries, where more popular attention is usually given to the more visible part, i.e. applications. --
Ajgorhoe (
talk) 03:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- WP:ITSUSEFUL is not enough be in encyclopedia. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Delete though unfortunately. It was one of the early .NET ANN libraries (I remember a classmate who was trying to use this). However, as far as I remember it was not very popular. I am not sure how do we fulfil WP:GNG in cases of software, (unless we are talking about OpenCV or TensorFlow). If I compare with something similar such as iTextSharp (iText for C#), I don't see any article for that (though there is a small mention in the main iText article). Google Scholar shows a handful of citations but nothing in any tier-1 conference like ICML, AAAI and others. (I apologise if I missed any paper from these). I don't think it was very popular though.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 20:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Seeking opinions Hello
Piotrus,
Staszek Lem,
David Eppstein and
Ajgorhoe. Although, I have already voted above, I would be happy to change my vote to a merge/redirect if a suitable article can be found.--
DreamLinker (
talk) 20:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your desire to retain info about this tool. It is not like some kind of overhyped startup or minor android applet. The library was really used in the academy, as we see the credits in academic articles. Nowever you have to find independent refs with some substantial info, not simple mentions:, in order to justify its inclusion somewhere, per
WP:NOT ("not a collection of miscellaneous information").
Staszek Lem (
talk) 20:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your explanation. The WP:NOT is a useful page to read. After looking again, I will think I will stay with my original delete vote. I also looked again at the publications which have cited this, but I am not very impressed as some of the publication seem to be in predatory journals.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 07:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your desire to retain info about this tool. It is not like some kind of overhyped startup or minor android applet. The library was really used in the academy, as we see the credits in academic articles. Nowever you have to find independent refs with some substantial info, not simple mentions:, in order to justify its inclusion somewhere, per
WP:NOT ("not a collection of miscellaneous information").
Staszek Lem (
talk) 20:41, 19 July 2017 (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.