Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Access Statistics
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 March 23. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Total Access Statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. Non-notable software. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This product is the leading statistical analysis product for the world's leading desktop database product (Microsoft Access). It's been reviewed in numerous publications (a few referenced in the article) and is used by many government, medical, and commercial organizations. It's in its 9th version and has been around for almost 15 years. At the bottom of this page are links to a variety of published scientific studies referencing the product: http://www.fmsinc.com/Products/statistics/awards.html
Why would this be considered non-notable?
It also compares favorably to the many other statistical packages listed here Comparison of statistical packages with much shorter histories. DataAnalyzer (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:N not established, breaks WP:SELFPUB Chzz ► 16:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some references that show Total Access Statistics is relevant and in use for many years. These peer-reviewed, published scientific papers are available online for you to verify:
- National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/101/25/9309.full
- Oxford Journals, Journal of Epidemiology: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/29/5/813
- Neoplasia: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1635162
There are probably more online and certainly many papers which are not online. If there's wording that should be changed, please make suggestions. Thanks. DataAnalyzer (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable non-consumer software. None of the cited journal articles are about this software. They are reports of medical data mining and analysis that happened to mention it in passing because they used it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If published scientific journals mention and used the product in their research, that should confirm the product is notable. These are significant publications, and there are many more.
In the External Links section of the article, there are references to online reviews of the software from magazines and books. More could be added if desired, and there are more which are not online. What is necessary to show this is a real product that's used in a wide range of environments? DataAnalyzer (talk) 16:45, 13 March 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.