- 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. SoWhy 17:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- POEM (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Constraint Language and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mixed Set Programming for AfD discussions of related articles. Msnicki (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Would this published paper help? Although according to Google Scholar, this paper itself hasn't been cited anywhere else, which is the usual gauge of relevance. Could not locate any other usable sources. Probably best off mentioning this software in a broader topic, if at all. Marasmusine (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does help a little bit. It contains two paragraphs about POEM, and two paragraphs about Natural Constraint Language, just enough to count as "significant coverage" in my opinion, and it certainly qualifies as an independent source. I think it looks reliable enough, although the lack of citations is a little worrying. If we can find another independent source then maybe there's a case for keeping this material (possibly merged into the NCL article). Jowa fan (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- POEM is an industrialized software product of the NCL Language. "POEM", a well-chosen name for the optimization software, stands for "Programming in Operational and Expressive Models". It is better to keep academy independent from industry. So NCL, as well as "Mixed Set Programming", are kept as purely scientific concepts. In the Wikipedia article, "References" and "Related works" are added to indicate some relevant works. Thanks for your attention. SophiePaul (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- There's a problem with those references. Three of them are co-authored by Jianyang Zhou, who works for Enginest: They are primary sources. The final reference is a wordpress blog, which is not considered a reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. It looks better to move the book on an experimental system based on POEM to references and delete the wordpress blog? Junglez (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a problem with those references. Three of them are co-authored by Jianyang Zhou, who works for Enginest: They are primary sources. The final reference is a wordpress blog, which is not considered a reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- POEM is an industrialized software product of the NCL Language. "POEM", a well-chosen name for the optimization software, stands for "Programming in Operational and Expressive Models". It is better to keep academy independent from industry. So NCL, as well as "Mixed Set Programming", are kept as purely scientific concepts. In the Wikipedia article, "References" and "Related works" are added to indicate some relevant works. Thanks for your attention. SophiePaul (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Poorly written article about apparently non-notable academic work. —Ruud 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not delete I think Wikipedia's requirements for these articles have been met; see also "Natural Constraint Language" and "Mixed Set Programming". I have followed the above advices to do necessary improvement by adding secondary sources found by Google search. If anything else still need to be done, please let me know. SophiePaul (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Merge. Since there's not much content at this page, I think it would work better as as subsection of Natural Constraint Language. Jowa fan (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the same reason as NCL. They are one and the same for all practical puroposes according to the barely readable primary source [1]. Unlike Impromptu, no socking fans have shown up to vote keep here. What a deal. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be kept. POEM/NCL has many users and applications. Some questions: Would you like the fans all come to vote here? It makes any sense that I ask a POEM user to vote by adding a "Keep"? That would really be a deal. People are very busy with their work. In such a debate, it does not suffice that I defend logically the article by answering all questions and comments? What difference does it make at all if in the place of each "SophiePaul" it is an "X" that you do not know at all?
- More sources have been added; see "Related works" in the NCL article (with more explanation).
- Moreover, POEM is an industrial implementation of NCL. Practical applications have proved NCL's value. If an academic work such as NCL has no application, it will not be quite meaningful. It makes great sense if POEM/NCL is applied in supply chain, manufacturing, airline planning, high-speed train planning, personnel planning, etc. SophiePaul (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Your question asking if we'd "like the fans all come to vote here" followed immediately by the appearance of additional WP:SPAs Petterclp and Logicfan suggest you've been WP:CANVASSing, SophiePaul. This is not a good thing. Msnicki (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Attention please: That was a question to FuFoFuEd only, not to all. After a whole day of work, in the night I editted those texts as a response to FuFoFuEd's challenging comment "no socking fans have shown up to vote keep here". Don't you think that it was FuFoFuEd who was misleading? I do hope that the debate is kind and serious. I sincerely hope that was not a pitfall. SophiePaul (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I am certainly not responsible for the "fans" voting below, if that's what you are suggesting. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggested nothing. In my question to you there was even no "keep", while in yours there is a "keep"! SophiePaul (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I am certainly not responsible for the "fans" voting below, if that's what you are suggesting. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Attention please: That was a question to FuFoFuEd only, not to all. After a whole day of work, in the night I editted those texts as a response to FuFoFuEd's challenging comment "no socking fans have shown up to vote keep here". Don't you think that it was FuFoFuEd who was misleading? I do hope that the debate is kind and serious. I sincerely hope that was not a pitfall. SophiePaul (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — SophiePaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Your question asking if we'd "like the fans all come to vote here" followed immediately by the appearance of additional WP:SPAs Petterclp and Logicfan suggest you've been WP:CANVASSing, SophiePaul. This is not a good thing. Msnicki (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this article is notable enough. But please improve. Petterclp (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — Petterclp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Convinced by SophiePaul's arguments, I vote for this article. Logicfan (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — Logicfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Another argument for the lack of notability of NCL/POEM/MSP is that there's no mention of any of J. Zhou's work in the comprehensive Handbook of constraint programming (2006). FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article should be kept (and improved) because:
- This POEM article helps to complement the other two from an industrial point of view.
- I agree with SophiePaul. The importance of an academic work is well proved if it has been put into practice successfully. Ortech123 (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Ortech123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.