Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of computer algebra systems

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 keep. Possibly also rename to List of computer algebra systems, but it's not clear whether we have consensus for this here. Sandstein 09:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of computer algebra systems

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

This article has multiple issues:

It is pure WP:OR: Although there are published papers that compare some computer algebra systems, none is cited and the content of the article is not based of existing sources.
Several of the cited softwares have nothing to do with computer algebra. "Computer algebra" implies the ability of doing some algebra on a computer. This excludes formula editors and software making only numerical floating point computation.
Several of the cited software are experimental software, that have not been published nor cited in scientific publications, and therefore do not satisfy the General notability guideline.
The article does makes any hierarchy between the systems, presenting at the same level widely used systems and confidential software (fringe software). Therefore the article does not satisfy the policy WP:NPOV.

It is not possible to rewrite this article for satisfying WP policies because of the lack of convenient sources. The only possibility that I see is to replace this article by sections in computer algebra systems, presenting the main computer algebra systems (with {{main}} template), explaining why there are important and summarizing their main abilities.. D.Lazard (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- I was surprised to see this article up for deletion, as I found it a useful CAS survey for an academic project two months ago. Regarding the issues raised,

The main content of that article is a set of tables summarizing CAS software package properties and capabilities. If summarizing other sources is original research, then all of Wikipedia is original research. It's true that there are likely no primary sources comparing this particular set of computer algebra systems, but simply listing software properties is not original research.
I have at least passing familiarity with about 60% of the programs mentioned, and all of them I know of have some computer algebra capability associated with them, as seen in the Functionality table. If some entries (please be specific) do not belong, that argues for the removal of those entries, not deletion of the whole article.
It's true that some of CAS entries do not have links to original sources, and may or may not have citations available for them. Again, I cannot tell because specific examples were not mentioned. Links should be added, or perhaps these entries should be removed if they have insufficient citations/notability. But again, this does not argue for removal of the whole article.
Lack of hierarchy is a good property of this article--it indicates a neutral point of view.

No, neutral point of view implies due weight D.Lazard (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction. I agree, a hierarchy, if justified, is consistent with a neutral point of view.Mark viking (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to merging this article with computer algebra systems, but only including a subset that are deemed important is a violation of a neutral point of view. As long as the CAS systems pass a notability threshold, they should be included/retained.
I'll note every Wikipedia page of comparison of software system, e.g., Comparison of numerical analysis software, has the same lack of original article/citations giving comparisons of the exact set of systems in the tables. The article under discussion is no worse in this regard than other pages.

Mark viking

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If as the nominator suggests "there are published papers that compare some computer algebra systems" then the topic is probably notable and the remedy would be to (re)write the article in accordance with the reliable sources. Deltahedron (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the published comparisons are old (more than 10 years ago) and obsolete. The field is now sufficiently large and active that, apparently, nobody is able to make a general comparison of all the existing systems. Moreover, comparing general systems like Maple and Mathematica with systems specialized in some specific area like, for example GP/Pari (Number theory) and GAP (group theory) makes no sense. Therefore, the recent comparisons consist essentially in what I have sketched for expanding computer algebra system. D.Lazard (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- There is clearly interest in this kind of information as people keep trying to insert it into the individual systems pages. Better to collect it in one place. I would be happy to advise on some of the issues that affect the page, but have felt powerless to do so due to significant COI status. JonMcLoone (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rename to List of computer algebra systems. I think the OR problem is if this is though of as a comparison, trying to evaluate the pros and cons of the systems. As a simple list it has encyclopedic value showing the range of specific tasks under taken by CAS systems, the fringe systems are important here as mathematical problems often require dedicated systems, such a calculating Gröbner bases, which are beyond the remit of a general purpose system are are often where the real theoretical developments take place. It also illustrates the history of development starting with Reduce in the 1960's to modern web-based systems like Wolfram Alpha. --Salix (talk): 04:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of computer algebra systems. I agree with Salix. I think the directions to readers to use the information to "compare" caused writers to believe they need to provide comparison information, leading to OR problems. Articles should merely present information, not give instructions to the reader on what to take away from their reading of the material. Change the name to "List of computer algebra systems," give it a few months to improve, and revisit AfD if still needed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk)
Rename to List of computer algebra systems seems the best answer. The subject is notable enough for a list at least Deltahedron (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could be better referenced but the subject is notable and references for most software listed are probably easy to find. I would also keep the name "comparison", since it's what it is. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:34, 11 November 2012 (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.