Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace (plotting 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The result was   keep - nomination withdrawn with no deletes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Grace (plotting tool)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability. I know that lots of academics (myself included) use this software, but I can't find a good way of proving that it is notable. There are plenty of research papers which mention it in passing (e.g. "we used xmgrace to generate a plot") but I can't find any that give it significant coverage. There are plenty of user-contributed sources and the original user manual, but I don't know any textbooks, reviews in magazines, awards etc... Papa November (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep (per withdrawn nomination) Grace is a common word; many sources can be found for xmgrace/xmgr (the name of the binary & original incarnations):
 * Keep. I've a rule of thumb: if you've heard of it before you knew there was a Wikipedia article, it probably is notable enough to pass.  Google Books returns 21 hits on the more specific former name (xmgrace); Google Scholar more than 300.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but the article still needs to assert notability. I've edited the lead to include the Linux Journal article (thanks Karnesky!).  As far as I can tell, the google scholar results are all the fairly trivial "we used xmgrace to generate a plot" quotes as described above.  A couple of the books give significant coverage, however.  Thanks for helping to find sources.  I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Papa November (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've a rule of thumb: if you've heard of it before you knew there was a Wikipedia article, it probably is notable enough to pass.  Google Books returns 21 hits on the more specific former name (xmgrace); Google Scholar more than 300.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but the article still needs to assert notability. I've edited the lead to include the Linux Journal article (thanks Karnesky!).  As far as I can tell, the google scholar results are all the fairly trivial "we used xmgrace to generate a plot" quotes as described above.  A couple of the books give significant coverage, however.  Thanks for helping to find sources.  I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Papa November (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've a rule of thumb: if you've heard of it before you knew there was a Wikipedia article, it probably is notable enough to pass.  Google Books returns 21 hits on the more specific former name (xmgrace); Google Scholar more than 300.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but the article still needs to assert notability. I've edited the lead to include the Linux Journal article (thanks Karnesky!).  As far as I can tell, the google scholar results are all the fairly trivial "we used xmgrace to generate a plot" quotes as described above.  A couple of the books give significant coverage, however.  Thanks for helping to find sources.  I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Papa November (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (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.