Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodin tool

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. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodin tool

[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)

Not notable, no clear official website with only 26 reviews on SourceForge, fails WP:GNG and sounds promotional, article also has many issues with the last significant edit in February 2016. Hadal1337 (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – referenced in and used for many peer-reviewed research publications, and not just by the developers. See multiple pages of references starting from this Google Scholar search demonstrating WP:GNG. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sympathy with the nom as it is a poor article, but per Jonathan Bowen, has SIGCOV in research papers. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely needs work and is a poor article, however the research papers linked to by Jonathan Bowen show notability. I think the closer should add the research papers as refs somewhere in the article (if they haven't been already) and then tag for copyediting. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — assuming this is a "keep", I am willing to work on improving the article with appropriate references in due course. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Multiple issues tags have been left on the page since April 2022, with no updates at all. I sincerely doubt Jonathan Bowen will be the one to "improve the article in due course". Also, with regards to the peer-reviewed publications, there is only one significant article with 811 citations, the majority of articles have less than 30 citations, even so, articles published since 2019 have on average less than 1 citation.

Hadal1337 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2023 (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.