Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LabPlot

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. Arguments for speedy deletion disregarded as going directly against policy and established practice. decltype (talk) 06:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LabPlot

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

Contested Prod, original Prod reasoning Non-notable software. Source checks show it appears as mere indexes in directories of software. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Nominating here after looking for reliable sources that discuss the software and not finding any. No indication this is notable software. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally searched and could not find good coverage of this. Miami33139 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched for sources when this was mentioned in an AFD. I couldn't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy delete per A7 - article does not assert notability. Failing that, it fails WP:N - notability is not established within the article text. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) -- nothing in the way of notability is asserted here. JBsupreme (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not speedy as it's a computer program, which is specifically excluded from A7. Please check WP:CSD, and it's tak p. for discussions explaining why these sorts of things are not included. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep has 28 google scholar hits and 23 google book hits--UltraMagnus (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We want sources about LabPlot, not papers that say "I used LabPlot to crunch some numbers." Can you identify which of these Google hits actually counts as a reference about LabPlot so the rest of us do not have to mine through an unrefined search? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miami33139 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2009
Keep WP:N states that peer recognition is one indication of notability. If Miamia33139 acknowledges the existence of this recognition (in the form of dozens of citations), then this article should be kept. Note: I have not actually hunted for sources about this. I suspect they exist. But our policy does not say that they must exist to keep this. --Karnesky (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Karnesky (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, numerous sources, software is actively used, print media coverage. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It wouldn't be mentioned in that many books, if it wasn't notable. Dream Focus 03:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Peer recognition is obvious. Sources indicating such recognition exist. As such, it is notable by all standards. Notability guidelines have to be interpreted with reasonable WP:COMMONSENSE: not covering a largely peer-recognized software is a hole in our coverage. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 10:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the notability requirement. It has multiple sources on google books. Burningview ✉ 01:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the Google books hits discuss this software package. Some of them seem to mention the software because they are software catalogs. A catalog does not establish notability. The Western Educational Computing Conference book says that students in a course were introduced to the software package during the course, again no notability. There are a few books that are about GIS, the reference to Labplot in these all seem to be a filename, no discussion about the software package at all. The other books don't appear to be any help either. The Google scholar hits are not any help either. Most of them appear to be some one did research and used the software package to present the info, this does not establish notability. If I am missing something let me know which hits establish notability so we can work them into the article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep widespread use is one indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 5 October 2009 (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.