Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALEGRA

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. ✗plicit 12:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALEGRA

ALEGRA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Self-sourced (now to a dead link) for its entire 17-year history. It seems odd to have an article on a code using a specific formulation when we don't even have an article on the formulation, Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian. BD2412 T 18:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Radioactive (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's quite a few scholar hits going back to 2000. Book references are meager but there are a few. I haven't looked closely at the quality of the sources. "Arbitrary-Lagrangian-Eulerian" has quite a lot more hits and might be notable. --mikeu ^talk 19:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the formulation is notable, the code can be mentioned there, but it seems to be a stretch to say that the code itself is notable. BD2412 T 19:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a distinct lack of hits online on the subject. Most of what comes up turns out to be copying the Wikipedia text, e.g. here. Before having something on "ALE" we want to have something on "ALEGRA"? It does not work that way. -The Gnome (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Software with no independent sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2022 (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.