Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrix (IT)

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 of the debate was Delete. --Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matrix (IT)

Possible hoax, no verifiable sources presented. Initially proposed for deletion. BigE1977 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Googling the word "matrix" with other file system terms produces no results that would agree with the definition presented in the article. The word matrix, in the usage example referred to a HTML table that contained a list of files. Despite the disputed factual accuracy, the article is still an unexpandable dicdef. BigE1977 17:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

have you tried "software matrix"? Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, I am not familiar with the term, being a programmer myself. He is quoting this article at IBM. -- ReyBrujo 19:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The source ReyBrujo points to above does not support the definition, as per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. OK, it's not a hoax. It's a misunderstanding by the article creator, as to what "matrix" was used for in that context. There's still nothing worth keeping. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Could just as easily be a misunderstanding as a hoax. I have seen 'matrix' used in connection with tables that look like that on various sites. Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. Ehheh 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

see hoax vs language usage (Constructed_language, see dictionary. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)~

• Delete. I'm a programmer and I've never seen the term used as described. The referenced article may have chosen "matrix" to refer to the data layout to avoid confusion, because table is a valid computing term. What the WP article describes is a "package" or "bundle". Jamoche 21:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You have never seen the term. That's not a scientific proof. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And I did a google search, but as my results were the same as already mentioned, I didn't mention it. I even googled "software matrix" but got either false positives or pages using the term to refer to webpage table layouts. Jamoche 19:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as definition. Transwiki to Wiktionary/Matrix (Programming) at best. I don't know any programmers that refer to a package as a "matrix". ~Kylu (u|t) 23:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is nothing personal, but how many programmers do you know? (you suggest that you know programmers). I know of a website using the term for software products. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 10:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please point us to the page to see the context in which it is being used. -- ReyBrujo 13:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Mm, I'd probably say a half dozen outside various OSS projects. Typically my programming friends work on sourceforge-based OSS projects. I'm afraid I tend to shy away from "big company" (IBM, Microsoft) projects on there (Yes, MS has stuff on sf) so that could be a reason I don't run into the term. My personal programming experience and number of programmers I know is, in this case, somewhat irrelevant to the primary problem of this article, in that it appears (to me) to be more a dictdef than encyclopedic content, and should be deleted and transferred to Wiktionary so they can debate its merits. Hope that answers your question. ~Kylu (u|t) 16:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

www.mathtutor.com/matrix.html Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 08:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not the same usage as described in the Matrix (IT) article or the IBM page that it originally referred to. The article refers to a group of binaries which form a software application. The DLL tree of Windows Operating System, also the various versions of Windows itself, are a "software matrix". i.e. a Software package, the matrix you point out is a Matrix (graph) listing educational software and appropriate grade levels for said software. Your matrix is a human-read selector for determining which software to use, which by definition the article's matrix is computer-read. If you'd like to, please consider writing Matrix (graph) which has of yet has no article or link on the disambiguation page (q.v. "table" in math or graphics). If we made a seperate entry for each of the various types of Matrix (graph) possible, it would have to have its own wikipedia. 207.145.133.34 15:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: I have rewritten the article. It needs attention of someone in business. I see this deletion a possible censorship of information but can not proof it myself, if it indeed figures an OR piece. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 10:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: A math matrix? The article isn't talking about a int matrix[64][64]; matrix, it is closer to the definition of a dependency tree instead. -- ReyBrujo 13:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Math matrix'es are not obvious to anyone, i believe software matrix resembles that module's of a software package play together "compareable to a (math) matrix". It looks a valid usage of language to me - not neccessarily a wikipedia article. Probably one from IBM/Microsoft could give a statement...

the sentence ReyBrujo referd to was "software matrix = similar to math matrix" Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 11:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Stubs and dicdefs are deleted all the time, would you mind explaining how this one would be construed as censorship please? I'm afraid I don't see it. Censorship is described as the removal of information that is harmful to the censoring body... this isn't harmful to Wikipedia, it's just at best in the wrong place. If it's contentious, then perhaps a redirect to a more commonly-named article (Software package perhaps?) 207.145.133.34 15:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleting content which is not understood, or just disliked: this is malicious censorship. If it is not encyclopedic, then it is not censorship. If it is OR, then it is not censorship. I never mentioned censorship for this Afd. It is possible to list these meanings in the disambiguation page (as single line). Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is, imho, constructive discrimination to remove a term which as far as I can tell:

1. Is not a widely used industry term. It is minority at best.
2. Is written as a dictionary definiton, not an encyclopedic article (thus should be transwiki'd).
3. Is understood and not disliked. I doubt it'd be difficult to contact more programmer wikipedians and get expert opinions on the article if you'd like, though it's still dicdef.
4. As far as your not mentioning censorship, I'm afraid I have to disagree on this point also. Please look up at the only Weak Keep vote (or only Keep vote at all for that matter) where you mention censorship in that line.
5. The article does not cite any sources which refer to it in the manner that it was written. The original citation seemed to be a misunderstanding of the term as used, and the matrix that you note above is not anywhere near the same concept.

I'm rather curious as to why you're fighting so hard to keep a dictionary definition in the encyclopedia? Akidd, you're still the only one with a keep vote on the matter and these back-and-forth comments seem to be what's holding up the process. If possible, please reply on my talk page. I'm not sure it's really appropriate to continue debating the same points in this space. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's jargon. I've heard of it, but it's not really worth an article. See WP:MOS DEF. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 02:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The definition presented failes WP:V — an entirely different definition is supported by the reference. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2006 (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.