Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astropy


 * 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. I think there are substantive reliable sources to establish notability. Please continue to improve the article by adding in those sources. JodyBtalk 14:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Astropy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject shows little notability, has no sources or references except the official site. Possibly WP:SPAM.  Alex discussion ★ 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * keep The paper describing the package has only been out since July, but already has citation by a paper in a peer reviewed journal and citations in four more submitted papers. WP:NSOFT, which is an essay, indicates that notable software "is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field", and this software seems to meet that requirement.  It might be a tiny bit on the premature side for a wiki article, but I think the citations are adequate evidence of notability .  Sailsbystars (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * keep At least one other of the papers listed above has been accepted to a peer-reviewed journal. The growing emphasis of open-source software in astronomy, particularly Python, speaks to this package's notability. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * keep This is a relatively new package, but one that has already caught on and seems likely to be of fundamental importance to Astronomers. It attempts to unite development effort around a single package, thus reducing wasted duplication of effort. So far that effort appears to be succeeding very well. AstroPy also includes at least two mature and very widely used packages: PyFITS and PyWCS. I also think it is useful to have a wikipedia entry for AstroPy. Please give it a chance.R3owen (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * keep The use of astropy for research in astrophysics is becoming increasingly common as other people have already mentioned. Despite the package still being relatively new, it starts having packages in various linux distributions. Med (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * keep Wikipedia is a useful resource when researching software to use for a particular project. Specifically Astropy, being the only major framework for Python in astronomy (Python is a rapidly growing language in astronomy), should be mentioned in Wikipedia. Despite it's infant status (having been founded only two years ago) it already has a large amount of contributors (65 compare to numpy's ~120) and even more users negating the statement of low notability.
 * keep astropy is a very useful new package, that is very quickly gaining users in the professional astronomy community.
 * keep A new software package used by the world's relatively few professional astronomers isn't ever going to be on the front page. But for those who do need to know about it (eg students new to the field), a Wikipedia article is an important reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbarmby (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Quick news and books search showed nothing about the software program itself, and a search of Google in general only really turned up documentation from their website. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG.  Also, sock puppetry going on above here?  Taking this to WP:SPI -    Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 22:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Striking post. Will explain further down.  Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 22:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do a google search on pyfits instead. That package is being relocated into astropy, and it will stop being made available in the next year as a standalone package. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pypedia (talk • contribs) 23:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * keep pyfits, just for info, is an essential software component so far maintained by NASAs Space Telescope Science Institute. And the website hosts an active mailing list with over 600 subscribers from professional astronomical research institutions, so good luck with the WP:SPI!BDwinds (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For those Wiki maintainers interested, you may follow the recent topic creation thread on the above user-list http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/astropy/2013-November/thread.html Also please Google properly and you will see 1,180 scientific PDFs referencing Astropy https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=astropy&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=pdf&as_rights=. The Hubble Space Telescope team sponsors this project's events as well http://www.stsci.edu/institute/conference/astropy/participantList — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjsdotorg (talk • contribs) 00:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * comment: This Wikipedia page has been discussed in an astropy-related listserv, partly explaining the many editors contributing to it. There is no sockpuppetry going on here. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 00:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (at the very least for the time being). This package is widely used in peer-reviewed astronomy papers (and has been since well before the main Astronomy & Astrophysics publication was published, so citations don't yet clearly cite that). Given that the article is new, it at least has enough possibility for development into an article which establishes notability through third-party sources (which I think are currently lacking). I strongly prefer to let the editors work on this article for at least a few days before considering deleting it. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 00:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For those interested... wiki actually has a lot of articles on astronomical software with similar sourcing to this one. I know, I know WP:OTHERSTUFF.  But can software be notable when the user base is only maybe 1000 people?  I know I !voted keep above, but the delete voters have a point in that it wouldn't pass the usual interpretation of needs gnews sources. Do science papers count? In that case there are as I said in my keep rationale, 2 published+3 submitted sources.  But I don't know if there's any precedent for if science papers can establish notability like that.  Anyway, a list of more astronomical software articles is below along with notes on sourcing.  Sailsbystars (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Astronomical_Image_Processing_System - Article in linux journal, otherwise self sourcing
 * AIPS++ - ASP conference papers with [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=1993ASPC...52..156C&amp;refs=CITATIONS&amp;db_key=AST 7 citations
 * FITS - Pretty good sources, the main published paper has 158 citations
 * SPICE - All self-cites, but NASA=self in this case
 * IRAF - no reliable sources whatsoever


 * Comment: The number of accounts that popped back to life (or were created the day of the AFD) to vote in this AFD shows a sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry campaign going on. I just notified another "suddenly alive" account for spamming Astropy (fixed for format and Astropy left pending AFD). Re: astropy-related listserv, that's still Meatpuppetry. As to AFD, no comment at this time. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually unfortunate that all these new accounts have showed up because the AfD debate has some rather interesting issues for which I don't think there are obvious answers, but that debate has been drowned out by all the non-policy based arguments from new accounts which will just wind up being discounted by the closing admin....   Sailsbystars (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * keep Python package widely used in astronomy. As Med noted, widely distributed in many linux distribution, as well as pure python package managers. Meodudlye (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * keep AstroPy is included in the Python(x,y) distribution. peterl (talk)


 * Alex raises an interesting point — can something be notable by WPs standards that is of high relevance to just one community, if that community is small in absolute numbers (even though, I'd like to say, quite visible to a wider public)? We certainly cannot decide on that internally. But I'd like to set some numbers straight: more than 600 subscribed to the list probably covers mainly ″early adopters″, users interested in development and the contributors themselves; there are, I think, about 50,000 - 100,000 professional astronomers worldwide, and any of them using Python (which is still rapidly gaining popularity) will have to use astropy sooner or later if they want to access the de facto astronomical file standard FITS. You could probably add to that a similar number of students each year, who will certainly be better off getting a Python-based training than working in a specialised language like IRAF or MIDAS. BDwinds (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: FoBM, if you'd study the list thread you might realise that there was first a call for volunteers to document the project on Wikipedia, and once someone took the burden of setting up the initial page (thanks again rjsdotorg!), others joined in with their contributions as well. Even some who just joined Wikipedia to work on this (which includes myself). And, yes, the rest of the community was encouraged to contribute more after the AFD came up, since I think we were frankly taken by surprise that 10 min after one starts work on a new page someone comes by and requests to delete it. But this seems nonetheless like a perfectly reasonable working mode to me. Also, input on the various distributions and projects often can only come from those who are directly involved at this point. I don't know if this now qualifies as Meatpuppetry BDwinds (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment:Time stamps and history on this page and other pages exactly match the WP:PUPPET nutshell. We are not talking about accounts created to work on an article, there are accounts coming back to life or created after the start of AFD. We can ASSUME its just new users from the listserv but Wikipedidia consensus treats it all the same per WP:MEAT, such votes are "disregarded or given significantly less weigh". Probably doesn't make a difference since it looks 50/50 per the remaining votes. The article itself needs a cleanup to match Wikipedia format. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I could not find a defined criterion for what timeframe exactly one should assume WP:PUPPET, however already pointed out that it was technically impossible for anyone else to start work on the article before the AFD. People seem prone to spotting ducks just about everywhere; but I suggest as well to concentrate on improving the content and format of the actual article and then see if it matches Wikipedia standards. BDwinds (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * comment Re BDwinds, above, it is of high relevance to just one community, but it is now integral to science data often shown in print and books in the form of Hubble images, and those from other instruments, often the largest in the world. Hubble_Space_Telescope has such images in its own article. As for conspiratorial meatpuppetry, articles such as Python itself, for instance, cannot possibly be written by completely disinterested parties; any knowledge of the domain worth communicating implies use. I (a hobbyist astronomer, but Python professional) created the page as I felt it had as much notability as Scipy, particularly in that it is a new collaboration managed by some of the most noted scientists in the field. Criticisms of the article's actual content are welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjsdotorg (talk • contribs) 16:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to FITS. First of all, a WP:TROUT goes to the nominator for bringing to AfD an article only 12 minutes old and thus WP:BITEing a relatively new editor. Much better would have been to place a notability or promotional tag on the article and best would have been to contact the editor and discuss your concerns. Regarding the article, AstroPy is fairly new, having been released to the public in July 2013. There seems to be a lot of momentum behind it and it will no doubt become notable in time. But for now, there are few publications that mention it. There are primary publications that are reliable sources, such as Astronomy & Astrophysics article, and there are secondary publications that use AstroPy, but don't go in depth about AstroPy itself. Unfortunately, I could not find multiple, in-depth, independent reliable sources to satisfy notability per WP:GNG. However, basic facts about AstroPy are verifiable in reliable sources and per WP:PRESERVE, we should strive to preserve verifiable information. As AstroPy has or will become the canonical python FITS implementation, I suggest merging a short summary to the FITS article section FITS, where the package is already mentioned. There is no prejudice to recreation when multiple independent reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for bringing in the reminder of WP:CIVIL!
 * Re: Merge with FITS I should clarify that the file interface is only one sub-package of a single library of AstroPy; while we have probably focussed on this element, since it is among the most mature and has the strongest institutional backing, the functionality of AstroPy goes far beyond just loading data. IMO merging it under FITS would be paramount to merging Lightroom, ImageMagick or even Photoshop into the corresponding section on RAW files. While it may be true that most of the other sections have not reached the same level of maturity and documentation yet, filing it under FITS now and splitting it off again later would appear to be rather confusing and counter-productive BDwinds (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) comment: Though astropy includes FITS reading packages, it includes many other packages as well, so confining it to FITS is inappropriate. I think the combination of the A&A refereed paper, which goes into great depth, the Space Telescope package (a third party source) using it, and the .Astronomy conference proceeding (mostly written by third parties, though the lead developer of astropy is a coauthor well down the author list) mentioning the prominence of astropy are sufficient to establish notability. Following your logic through, can we at least put this AfD on hold for a while and focus on improving the article to address there concerns in the more appropriate, less-newcomer-threatening environment of Talk:Astropy? —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 19:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that FITS is not an ideal target for a merge, as FITS capabilites are only a subset of AstroPy, but it is the best target I could find. I'm flexible on target if you all have other suggestions. AfD discussions run for at least seven days, so you all still have some time to develop the article and find independent reliable sources (per WP:RS) that we may have missed. The A&A article is peer-reviewed and relaible, but not independent. The conference proceedings are mostly independent, but are they reliable, that is, are they peer-reviewed? If so, these could be useful toward demonstrating notability. Userfying the article, as suggested by Red Phoenix below, would be a good option for developing the article at your own pace without the threat of deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If there isn't a good other place to put the content, I don't see what the cost is to keeping it where it most obviously belongs, at astropy. I normally consider unrefereed papers on the arxiv as intermediate in reliability between a peer-reviewed, published source and a self-published source. However, since facts aren't in dispute here (and facts are fully supported by the peer-reviewed paper, which is fully reliable -- just not third party), I'd consider the arxiv source mostly acceptable (if not sufficient on its own) for establishing notability, the one drawback being the developer who is down the author list on the proceedings. OTHERSTUFF aside, the standard this article is being held to is much higher than much of the software in Category:Astronomy software. eg AIPS++, IRAF, KStars, and SOFA all lack third party refs. Also, astropy seems to me to clearly meet criterion 1 for inclusion of the WP:NSOFT essay, which doesn't list the third party requirement of WP:GNG. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 05:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to FITS per Mark viking. Seems the best. Lack of multiple RS and a large part of the article being a linkfarm makes it poor encyclopedic content. Maybe some day. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy - I've stricken my delete above in light of some facts that have risen. I was rather surprised, but also relieved, to find out this wasn't a WP:SPI issue despite the signs.  My decision to revoke my opinion on deletion comes from the gigantic dedication to this subject that it seems has become apparent.  It does seem to have been a mistake to have this brought to AFD so soon, although I do recommend that this be more further developed before being posted to the mainspace.  I could not find anything to assert notability, but if such a great number of editors are convinced, what I might recommend is that a user working on this subject, such as, adopts it into a sandbox page in userspace and fleshes it out with reliable sources and the necessary notability establishments, then have it reviewed by an experienced editor before having it posted into the userspace.  I think this is a good compromise solution that both helps the new users and committed team behind this article to build it, and allows the mainspace to continue maintaining its quality standards (note: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean that there is little standard for quality in our articles; but only that Wikipedia has over 4.2 million articles and not all of them have been weeded through and improved or evaluated yet... not even close, as a matter of fact.)  My apologies as well to Sailsbystars for the huge misunderstanding at WP:SPI - there's a reason they call it "reasonable suspicion", but every now and then reasonable suspicion is not truth, and this was one of those cases.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 22:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also support userfy (others, see WP:USERFY for more details) if the editors wanted this option. I concur that what we have here is a group of editors enthusiastic about AstroPy and there was and is no intent to game the AfD system. --Mark viking (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey no worries Red Phoenix, no hard feelings here. I've been around for long enough that I've seen plenty of AfD shenanigans (see  this for my favorite), so I understand where you were coming from.  I also would support userfication and would offer my userspace as a suitable home for the page.  Perhaps it should go through AfC in a few months if there is more evidence for notability at that point? And after it's been cleaned up a bit as well. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, let me return you one in response here (which did lead to an SPI, and all confirmed as socks). AFC wouldn't be a bad process to follow here with userfication, but as long as there's a good establishment of notability, I'd be fine with placing it back in userspace once notability is established.  It also seems so new that WP:CRYSTAL may have some implications here, but that doesn't mean it can't be sandboxed and worked on until it's ready and has notability.  That's my take on it, at least.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 03:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, add, another alternate option is redirect to List of Python software with a one sentence blurb there w/source including a wikilink to the FITS article. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The arXiv papers used as sources all seem to be legitimate conference papers; I think that satsfies WP:RS and WP:N. -- 101.119.14.34 (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They are mostly from proceedings that appeared in print or actual refereed journals. Thanks Mark viking and Red Phoenix for stepping forward to finally turn this into a productive discussion. Merging into FITS would mean deleting about 90% of the article, since we certainly cannot have all that non FITS-related content in there. So I would also prefer userfy over that. And we may really need some guidance as to what exactly is desirable for a WP article; while some sections certainly are still lacking content, I am a bit at a loss right now as to which direction to go. On the one hand there is the purported lack of WP:RS, on the other complaints about this turning into a "link farm". WP:OTHERSTUFF is not an acceptable guideline, but without clearer templates for this case, what should we look for if NOT other articles on similar topics? BDwinds (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * comment It seems evident in retrospect that I should have created this in sandbox or user space, and given it a week or two before posting to the main wiki. BDwinds "some sections certainly are still lacking content" indicates that users (or non-users, in some manner) still need to provide content, but what, in the software realm, is most important for encyclopaedic content? The initial article was patterned after Numpy. I would much rather spend spare my moments at lunch improving the article than typing here, if I had a clearer direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjsdotorg (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * At the core of most deletion discussions is this: What makes the subject notable? In other words, why is it worth talking about?  There's a reason we don't do pages for every project ever known to exist, despite the common belief that we do.  Notability is established through reliable sources, and in more than simply a passing mention of a subject.  Media coverage from sources known for fact-checking are generally reliable sources, such as books from established authors and experts, scholarly works, news stories, and certain websites, too.  Just because there's something on the internet about it does not mean it is a reliable source.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 01:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd also much rather spend the time working on the actual content; it seemed to me e.g. that paragraphs of coherent text might be regarded better encyclopaedic content than lists of features with or without links. But this is certainly not an insight you could get from studying any of the examples of existing pages for comparable software projects. It's either terse feature description or tutorials/documentation, which is also expressly not what is wanted on Wikipedia. I can't help but sharing Alex's impression that this page is now held to a far higher standard of WP:N than any other either in Category:Astronomy software, or of comparable ones in numerical analysis, if 7 scholarly papers + 4-5 established authors or institutions is still considered insufficient (including examples outside astronomy, e.g. PAW, ROOT, Biopython).BDwinds (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure it's so much that as it is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Simply put, there just aren't enough editors on Wikipedia to go through and weed out every category and help ensure encyclopedic value by improving notable topics and demonstrating notability while flushing out the unnotable ones.  I happen to know of one editor in particular who does that with fictional characters and settings, but not many editors do that, and it's a shame that there aren't more devoted editors like there appear to be for this one subject.  I'll admit this one isn't really along my lines—you'll often see me working on articles about video games and consoles.  Many interested editors have come and gone, leaving what we have now.  In any regard, here would be my question in response: how much coverage about Astropy itself is in those sources?  Remember, a passing mention isn't enough to be considered "significant coverage" per WP:GNG.  I'm just trying to help you guys out here, which is why I recommended the userfication, and I'm trying to help show a few of the principles of Wikipedia and how to build quality, encyclopedic content.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 04:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * question for astro-scientists in general, regarding notability: is the Astropy collaboration an unprecedented effort in the field of astronomy? Certainly large groups have worked on Keck or Hubble as large systems, but has there ever been 90+ astronomers holding regular meetings designing open tools? My impression as a 13 year Pythonista is that few packages in any language have garnered such involvement.Rjsdotorg (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any, but that certainly doesn't meant they don't exist. The major packages I'm most familiar with are either commercial (IDL, my normal tool of choice, although I'm increasingly replacing it with python) or developed by observatories (IRAF, CASA, miriad, etc). All of these packages have many sub-packages developed by astronomers, often as part of collaborations of varying degrees of formality. My impression is that astropy is one of the largest collaborations without an organisational lead. I don't have a reference to back that up, though. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 21:44, 7 November 2013 (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.