Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CadCAD

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 14:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CadCAD

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Cited source is primary. There's no indication of notability in line with WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG Viia o Lanti (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of this program relates to its use in computer-aided design and digital twins of large scale cryptoeconomic systems, including but not limited to the design of the Filecoin network's economic protocols as well as well design validation for past and upcoming Ethereum economic upgrades, including EIP 1559 and Ethereum 2.0: Beacon chain. It is clear that the above review is not familiar with this particular space. While a relative minority of the relevant code is public, but dynamical systems models in cadCAD are the standard for large scale cryptoeconomic systems in no small part due to Ethereum's influence over this space. While the knowledge about this tool and its use to design and monitor protocols controlling Billions of US Dollars worth of assets may be held by a relatively small number experts. Making this knowledge more widely available is a reason the cadCAD community has endeavored to add cadCAD to wikipedia. Its disappointing to see so much negative energy directed at this effort without doing the diligence. As I understand it notability is not strictly equal to legacy institutions. I reviewer interested in understand the notability is urged to reach out to someone from the Robust Incentives Group (see materials at https://github.com/ethereum/rig) at the Ethereum foundation, and/or the Economics team at the Filecoin Foundation (e.g. the researcher giving this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leJHrvz-YY8#t=12m36s) in order to understand the significance this "obscure little program" plays. Thanks for your consideration. Apologies if this note breaks with the standard form form wikipedia discussions; I am not a regular wikipedia contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:4F06:35A5:ED05:CB85:C23C:9D6B (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added new sources that are non-primary and independent. There are significantly more out there, but that is what I got from a first search pass Danlessa (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

btw, notice that using the find sources tools as done by Viia o Lanti will not return relevant results as google is changing the search term from "cadCAD" to "cad cad". Correcting for the search term will return a lot of indications of notability Danlessa (talk)

Delete Obscure little program. Not notable in my view. Ode Joy (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that creator has obvious COI, and also possibly WP:PAID applies. MarioGom (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominatorBrayan ocaner (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though it appears to be a component in several significant processes, in itself it does not seem to achieve significant enough coverage. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2021 (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.