Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13

13 April 2011

Ch interpreter

Ch interpreter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The usefulness of this article for all C and C++ programmers From the discussion we've been having, it seems fairly obvious that the nominator has a conflict of interest in deleting Ch article. Is this a common practice in the Wikipedia community?

Some research turns out that the nominator was related to Hamilton C shell and his article was deleted by an administrator.

Having checked the website about Hamilton C shell, it seems that this shell is mostly a C shell that works in Windows only for $350, while the standard ch edition with its C compatible shell features is free for commercial use.

The Ch review article from Byte Magazine talks about Hamilton C shell and Ch.

Why would anyone be hurt by having a Wikipedia article about the ch interpreter?

There are multiple, reliable, independent, and different sources as I noticed in the page you created. There are seven.

The argumentation in the discussion to deny some of them as reliable doesn't look quite right.

If the software review article written by a professor in a peer reviewed journal (IEEE) cannot be counted as a reliable source material and be treated as "just anyone with an opinion in print", what kind of reliable source are we looking for and from where?

Notability doesn't equal popularity nor does it equal "expert-only" source. Otherwise, most newspaper and media references in Wikipedia will fall short of the notability standard since the authors are not domain experts. Who is authorized to issue expert certificate to the authors when judging them?

In addition, to declare another two articles written not on their own without proof is a baseless accusation. I don't know if there is an interaction for the author(s) when writing an article. But arguing the article cannot be used as a second source because there is an interaction is weak. don't you think such an article might contain more accurate information when knowing more about the software?

Does it matter for the interaction with subject when writing an article? Doesn't news reporter need to interact with the subject directly and get influenced when writing an article related to the subject for the media?

However, it is acceptable that we assume the articles are biased when they conflict with others. WK:NPOV requires that "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective."

Garykline (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn to keep. The Byte article by Huber is good evidence of notability; it was added before the end of the AfD and mentioned in the AfD. The closer should not have ignored it. There is no real need to discuss other allegations here. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• I've notified the closer for you, Garykline.

  The questions you ask are fair and relevant and it seems right that we try to answer them here. You ask: it seems fairly obvious that the nominator has a conflict of interest in deleting Ch article. Is this a common practice in the Wikipedia community? and I think the answer is that while it's not "common practice", it does happen that a user will nominate their competitors' products' articles for deletion for business reasons. In theory, this should not be a problem because our AfD process is supposed to be objective, in that for most matters that go to AfD, there are relatively simple tests that can be applied. You ask: Why would anyone be hurt by having a Wikipedia article about the ch interpreter? and the answer is, of course, that nobody is hurt by that kind of article. But from our point of view, the problem is that Wikipedia is very tempting and convenient for marketers. Wikipedia articles achieve high search engine rankings and we accept user-submitted content, so we need a way to filter out marketing spam, because if we didn't, our users wouldn't be able to find the content they actually want to read in among the advertisements. So there are minimum thresholds that articles need to achieve, particularly in terms of having more than one reliable source that's independent of the subject. (The exact definition of "reliable source" has generated enough discussion to fill whole bookshelves, but you can see the principles here.)

  You ask: Does it matter for the interaction with subject when writing an article? and the answer is that the sources must be independent. They can (and should) have investigated the subject, but the author and publisher of the source must be editorially and financially independent of it.

  I agree with DGG when he says the Byte article is an independent, reliable source, and I would add that the other sources in the article in your userspace back this up. I think the outcome of the AfD was wrong.

  I would like to be clear that I think that Sandstein interpreted the consensus correctly, but that consensus made a basic error of fact: it decided that there were no reliable sources when in fact the reliable sources were plainly evident. Overturn to keep.—S Marshall T/C 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Is there another reliable source giving significant coverage besides the Byte article?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, the sources are in the draft article that Garykline links above. For example, this or this, but there are others.—S Marshall T/C 06:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Both of those seem to have been written by someone who, at least from looking at the AfD discussion, is the creator of the subject and therefore not independent.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're asserting that those journals are self-published rather than peer-reviewed, that distinction isn't relevant. That they were mentioned non-trivially in RS is far more important, and "COI" authorship of the article does not impeach a peer-reviewed RS. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, Jclemens, even though Yaksar is disagreeing with me, I do think he makes a fair point. An article by the software author is of a different quality, in notability terms, to an article by an independent person. Your counterargument that the publisher is independent is, of course, well taken. Other sources by different people are linked in the draft article so it's not necessary to scrutinise the sources I linked too closely.—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do find it relevant. The GNG generally multiple independent sources of coverage. Even if the journals are peer reviewed, there's no possible way those specific sources can be interpreted as independent; quite the opposite.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly think that articles written in peer-reviewed journals can be viewed as being independently vetted and therefore meeting the definition of independent. Given that others feel the same way, it's pretty plain that there is a possible way. In any case, there are also sources that are clearly independent, one which was found right before the AfD closed... Hobit (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:GNG states that sources offered to establish notability shall be independent of the subject. Nowhere does it state an exception to the expectation of independence just so long as the source appeared in a peer-reviewed (or other especially impressive) journal. That's for good reason: As noted in the article on peer review, the process of peer review is inconsistently applied and may be directed only at enforcing editorial policy, not at making decisions about notability. The test of notability is not what the subject said about himself or his own work, even if 100% true and published in a learned journal. The test is what do other people say. Msnicki (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn to Keep based on the existence of multiple, high-quality RS appropriate to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. Nothing has changed. The BYTE article is a minor single mention and none of the rest of the sources is independent. Furthermore, policy states, "Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed." I am anonymous and wish to remain so. Msnicki (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn to Keep The above claim that the BYTE article is a minor mention appears to be factually incorrect.[1] Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. per Msnicki's reasoning below. Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse There's lots of ways to interpret what "independent sources" can entail, but by no stretch of the imagination can something written by the subjects creator be considered independent. The very basic standards of the GNG require multiple reliable and independent sources providing significant coverage, and with this article this has not been proven to be the case, and certainly not to the extent that should overturn an AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that there's lots of ways the word "source" can be read, and I think we can't get to the bottom of this point without examining them closely. To quote WP:V: The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

  In this case, you've correctly pointed out that the connection between the writer and the source weakens its case for notability. But what JClemens said earlier is that because an independent and reputable source published it, this strengthens its case for notability again. Or to put the same thing another way, this is not a self-published source.

  When you say, "this has not been proven to be the case"—an argument that is also repeated below—the links are in the userfied page for anyone to read. And when you say, "certainly not to the extent that should overturn an AfD", overturning AfDs is normal practice for DRV and well within our remit: this page is "the highest court" for such matters.

  Another thing I said above is that there are multiple sources, and I said the userfied page contains them. It does. This page, for example, is not by Harry Cheng. Neither is this one. So even if we were to accept that sources written by Cheng are unacceptable, there are other sources that must be inspected and dismissed before a deletion would be appropriate. I don't see a thorough interrogation of those sources in the AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So having looked further into the draft and the AfD discussion, it does seem that there are other potential sources existing. That being said, however, it does look like the existence of these was raised in the discussion, and various objections were given. I certainly don't feel comfortable with an AfD being overturned just because a different group of editors view the sources in a different way, so I still have to endorse this.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse The page's author should not waste time and editor's patience by attacking the neutrality of other editors, but should focus on finding WP:RS which are not associated with the product. TEDickey (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• I see the Heller article in BYTE as a medium-length software review that doesn't confer much notability. Even with weight added by Byte (magazine), it's definitely not a great source that would justify a closing admin overruling the apparent consensus to delete. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• I agree there. The closer doesn't have the authority to overrule the consensus on the basis of that source and I hope no blame attaches to him. DRV, on the other hand, does have that authority if it finds the AfD consensus was wrong on a point of fact.—S Marshall T/C 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion regardingm disagreement of the scope of DRV has moved to talk page --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I just found another article here from an independent source published by IEEE. Here is the quote from the abstract about this article. "The renovated course emphasizes development of algorithmic problem solving skills and familiarity with the C programming language, Excel, and Matlab. Extensive use is made of Ch, a C interpreter, for learning the C language."

From the previous discussions with Msnicki and TEDickey in the AFD, they were consistent from the beginning till the end that no article exists as RS (reliable source) for the Ch article no matter what references were presented. I am not sure how consensus about RS works. By the number of voting or the facts? By just questioning one or two references, then the rest of references will be dropped automatically as non-RS?

The previous 7 articles are listed below for your convenience. They are all published in peer-reviewed publications in the field. I would like to make a note that among these authors, Glassborow, Francis, is an active member of the ISO C and C++ Standard Committees and was Chair of the Association of C & C++ Users. Wilson, Matthew is a columnist and contributing editor for C/C++ Users Journal and Dr. Dobb's Journal, and author of two books on C++. Here is his wiki link. They are definitely experts on the subject. If somebody complains about Glassborow's article again, can you follow AfD "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, please make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist"? Thanks. I saw Gary have made an argument about why they should be used as RS at the beginning. Most people here are senior editors. is it supposed to be easy to make a judgment if his points make sense?

Heller, Martin (2001). Language Environment Byte Magazine.

Glassborow, Francis (2001). The Ch Language Environment Version 2.0 C Vu Magazine. pp. 36-37.

Wang, Gary (2002). Ch Solves Portability Headaches IEEE Spectrum.

Campbell, Matt (2003). A C/C++ Interpreter -- New possibilities for people who like C and Unix MACTECH, the journal of Apple technology.

Wilson, Matthew (2004). Open-RJ and Ch Dr. Dobb's Journal.

Huber, Tom (2010). An Introduction to C and Ch: Your One-Stop Shop for Scientific Computing IEEE Computing in Science and Engineering.

Liu, Li; Wang, Zhaoqing; Jiang, Xusheng (2010). Anchor-based programming teaching embedded with Ch platform Mechatronicsand Embedded Systems and Applications (MESA), 2010 IEEE/ASME International Conference. pp. 49-52.

Chuser (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• Relist When new sources that a reasonable person could find enough for WP:N appear at the tail end of a discussion it is generally a good idea to relist in order to see if the source is actually found to be enough. Discussion of sources in this DRV also leads me to believe that WP:N is pretty clearly met, but as I tend to lean toward keep in most discussions and others object, I think it would be productive to see if others agree in an AfD rather than just overturn to keep... Hobit (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• comment the two Wang's were already discussed and discarded due to their apparent close association with Cheng. The Huber source was discarded since it fails the knowlegable/authoritative guideline in WP:RS. Re-introduction of those sources only adds to the confusion TEDickey (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The "close association" thing, with respect to a peer-reviewed paper, is really a strange reason to discard a source about a tool/research idea. I realize that's the direction the discussion went and at DrV we should defer to the discussion unless it's really irrational, but darn it, that's pretty out there. The fact it got published in a reasonable place generates the needed independence IMO. Hobit (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Gary Wang has no association. I think you meant Matt Campbell and Wang, Zhaoqing. Regarding Professor Tom Hubber's article in the IEEE Computing in Science and Engineering, I am not here argue if he is knowledgeable or not. It is IEEE editors's job to determine if he is knowledgeable about the subject to publish his article. WP:RS states: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." It is "or", not "and". In other words, RS can be established if one of the above two conditions is met. Also from WP:RS, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". The IEEE Computing in Science and Engineering is one of the most authoritative academic and peer-reviewed publications. Chuser (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Both nom and Chuser have charged bias in the AfD. I've been named twice, Tedickey once. I find this remarkable coming from two obvious SPAs, as seen here and here. Anyone who doubts whether the AfD had time to consider all the sources offered (and also, the spamming here and on Amazon) need only look at the history. The article got considered, it was debated right to the end and the consensus was to delete. Also, part of what is missing from the review here is prior discussion on the article's talk page, where a series of editors had expressed doubts, not all of them just about the sources. If S Marshall had been there in the original AfD, maybe he'd have voted to keep, but the consensus would still have gone against him. Msnicki (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed some editor's concern which was posted years ago that the original interpreter article needs references and it looked like advertisement. There were none of references previously. But the article has been some changes and I have added the references. Everybody can make a judgment by the link restored by the editor here. The question is whether the article should or should not be listed because of the lacking of references. wiki is not about winning. If the original consensus and reasoning supporting the consensus are correct,just keep it. If wrong, what can the DRV do? Chuser (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I did miss that, since the edits from "GaryKline" are using the same "voice" as "Chuser". Perhaps someone could verify (or not) their possible association here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. TEDickey (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am not gary. Chuser (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• How interesting. I notice he spells his name all lower case, too, e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4. Msnicki (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse If new sources have come to light, editors are free to create a new article but it is no business of DRV to make an assessment of such sources. Also, the canvassing going on here is a little unsavoury. SpinningSpark 10:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is one thing here for argument. Are the references provided enough for WP:N to justify a Ch Interpreter article? If yes, then it comes to the next question. Can the original article here be used for improvement or it needs to have a complete new article? If the original article can not be used for improvement, then it needs to create a new article. What you observed is correct. I don't understand why so many arguments about the so obvious WP:N materials and really not want to post any more till I see your message. Chuser (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. I find the notion that peer review confers independence on a work written by an interested party deeply suspect. All peer review means is that the reviewers found the argument credible, not that they found the topic significant; that could only be determined by an independent person. Thus, the only source at issue here is the Byte article, which is a review and doesn't amount to much. If this gets more extensive coverage in future, it can obviously be reconsidered. Chick Bowen 01:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reviewers are independent people. Certain when I'm asked to review an article I'm selected because I know something about the topic, but I, like other peer reviewers (I assume) am looking to see if the research is credible and significant. If it isn't, I reject. I'm pretty sure that's how it works in most, if not all, fields. Hobit (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• You're confusing reliability with notability. The test of notability isn't whether a (possibly impressive) statement is true. The test is whether anyone independent said it. Msnicki (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Are we disagreeing that the reviewers aren't independent or that they didn't say anything? I claim that A) they are independent and B) they largely endorse the research methodology and relevance of the work. Are you disagreeing with either of those statements? Hobit (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
• There's another point of confusion which was injected a while back: not all content in a journal is "peer-reviewed", nor are all journals "peer-reviewed". Neither aspect has been established for the sources in discussion. Good to remember that before digressing TEDickey (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• The reviewers may be independent and may be fact-checking or otherwise verifying compliance with editorial policy but they are not making any statements in their own voice. That's why they don't add their own names as authors. (And of course, if they did, they would no longer be independent.) If afterward, they go out and write their own articles (while still independent), you can use that. But the fact it was "reviewed" (even assuming, as Tedickey points out, that you can prove that) is not enough. It's still the subject talking about himself and his own work. Msnicki (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

  The "Independence of sources" discussion at WP:CORPDEPTH provides additional useful guidance. Msnicki (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I made my statement based on a lifetime of experience with academic peer review, and I stand by it. Think of it this way: if George Smith writes an article on a brand-new topic and I review it favorably, I'm saying it deserves the attention of other scholars in the field; but there's no way that endorsement carries the same weight as if I wrote my own article backing up George Smith's claims. So sure, peer review is better than no peer review, but I cannot imagine Hobit means to suggest that it's equivalent to a genuinely independent view. Chick Bowen 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't imagine Hobit thinks they're equivalent, either, but he does seem to be arguing peer review is good enough and that's where we disagree. I think the guidelines are quite clear that peer or other kinds of review are not a substitute for independence in determining notability. Not even a patent (and think about the standard of review for that!) is considered independent. Msnicki (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Are we now discussing the articles below written by "an interested party"? I think S Marshall has already made a good coverage for both sides. Maybe wiki policy maker here can make it more clear how those articles published in the journals should be different from those self-published or paid source.

• Cheng, Harry (1993). "Handling of Complex Numbers in the Ch Programming Language". Scientific Programming: 76–106.
• Cheng, Harry (1993). "Scientific Computing in the Ch Programming Language". Scientific Programming: 49–75. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Cheng, Harry (1995). "Extending C and FORTRAN for Design Automation". ASME Trans., Journal of Mechanical Design: 390–395. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Cheng, Harry (1995). "Extending C with arrays of variable length". Computer Standards & Interfaces: 375–406. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Cheng, Harry (2002). "C99 & Numeric Computing". Dr. Dobb's Journal: 28–34. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Cheng, Harry (2006). "Ch: A C/C++ Interpreter for Script Computing". Dr. Dobb's Journal: 6–12. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Cheng, Harry (2009). "Speeding-Up Software Development Using Embedded Scripting". Dr. Dobb's Journal: 8–8. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Cheng, Harry (2009). "C for the Course". ASME Mechanical Engineering Magazine: 50–52. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Cheng, Harry (2009). C For Engineers & Scientists, An Interpretive Approach. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0077290467.

In addition to the above articles, there are multiple articles written by independent experts and got published in the most relevant and top engineering and science journals on the subject as I mentioned earlier. For example, Gary Wang's article "Ch Solves Portability Headaches", was published in the IEEE Spectrum -- one of top engineering and science journals. wiki link here states: "IEEE Spectrum Magazine, the flagship publication of the IEEE, explores the development, applications and implications of new technologies. ...IEEE Spectrum has a circulation of over 380,000 engineers worldwide, making it one of the leading science and engineering magazines." It should be no doubt that IEEE Spectrum is one of the top peer reviewed publications on the subject. Chuser (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

no - as you have noticed, we're discussing whether sources by close associates of Harry Cheng can in some way be contorted into a third-party source. Harry Cheng's papers are not under consideration at this point TEDickey (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

ok. Thanks. I thought Hobit has already made some clarification in the previous thread about the close association thing. Good to know about it. However, the concern about the close associates is not a big issue here since there are only two articles involved. I don't see any evidence that the rest of authors have any association with Harry Cheng. To make the discussion easier, I just re-organized those references. The list of publications by independent authors (non-associates) are listed below.

• Heller, Martin (2001)The Ch Language Environment Byte Magazine.
• Glassborow, Francis (2001). The Ch Language Environment Version 2.0 C Vu Magazine. pp. 36-37.
• Wang, Gary (2002). Ch Solves Portability Headaches IEEE Spectrum.
• Wilson, Matthew (2004). Open-RJ and Ch Dr. Dobb's Journal.
• Huber, Tom (2010). An Introduction to C and Ch: Your One-Stop Shop for Scientific Computing IEEE Computing in Science and Engineering.
• Furman, B.; Wertz, E. (2010). A first course in computer programming for mechanical engineers Mechatronics and Embedded Systems and Applications (MESA), IEEE/ASME International Conference. pp. 70-75

The list of publications authorized or co-authorized by the close associates of Harry Cheng are listed below.

• Campbell, Matt (2003). A C/C++ Interpreter -- New possibilities for people who like C and Unix MACTECH, the journal of Apple technology.
• Liu, Li; Wang, Zhaoqing; Jiang, Xusheng (2010). Anchor-based programming teaching embedded with Ch platform Mechatronicsand Embedded Systems and Applications (MESA), 2010 IEEE/ASME International Conference. pp. 49-52. Chuser (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)