Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kst (software)


 * 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. This is still not a very clear-cut case even after a DRV and three relists, but the "delete" arguments are more persuasive. I'm disregarding the conflicting views expressed by Djm-leighpark. There is exactly one opinion addressing the issue of third-party sources that is at the core of this AfD, and it's a "weak keep". There are two other "keep"s (and one "delete") that do not address third-party sources and must be given little weight. Everybody else argues that there are no (or not enough) third-party sources. This argument is, as mentioned, barely contested, and therefore remains decisive.  Sandstein  17:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Kst (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Samsara (creator) with the following rationale "certainly not to be done via prod, after so many years!". Edit long enough, I guess one can see every weird iteration of Arguments not to use in deletion discussion, including I guess "this has survived so long it should stay forever" :> Well, let's discuss this a bit more then. Sources, anyone? I couldn't find anything outside trivial mentions and primary sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * When undoing a prod, giving reasons is entirely optional. Doing so would merely be a courtesy. I find your personal attack extremely misplaced. Samsara 14:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I made any personal attack. You yourself noted you were not courteous in ignoring my specific request for a proper rationale, not me. All I said is that your argument is clearly a bad one (in fact, it is not an argument at all). I don't think my response to you at any point has been particularly so, nor less courteous than your reply to me. It is was not my intent to offend you, and if you feel offended, I apologize - but it was my intent to point out, inoffensively, that your argument is useless, not backed in any rationale we have (there's no policy, guideline or even an essay I am aware of that states that 'old enough' articles should not be deleted), and results in likely (as I expect this AfD will end up in delete) unnecessary expenditure of time for editors that will be posting here. Time will tell if I am correct or not, but if this ends up in delete, I hope you'll reconsider your future deprods. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The software is somewhat notable. It is part of Debian. Google Scholar search for "kst-plot.kde.org" gives 28 hits. So our lemma is notable, and the article is a legitimate stub. -- Oisguad (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: As best I can tell, none of those hits are actually about the software; they are about other activities, some of which used this software (or something similar to it) in the studies. Other hits included the "kst-plot" as part of a list of software that could be used for certain activities.  When looking directly at Google Scholar for "Kst (software)", many if not most hits are for knowledge sharing technology (KST). Risker (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Per Risker, AfD is not a vote and your argument is WP:GOOGLEHITS - also from the list of arguments to avoid during AFD. Please try to find proper in-depth sources required by WP:GNG. All you have proven is that the topic is not a hoax and it exists, and this is not being disputed. Existence, however, is not sufficient for having a Wikipedia article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've looked further for sources, and please also see my comment above. There just isn't enough software-specific information here. It would perhaps be suitable for merge into an article (or list article) that focuses on similar KDE extensions; many of those individual articles probably do not meet the threshold for notability, either, but as a group of applications would probably cross the notability point.  Risker (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I fully support soft delete/redirect/merge, as long as anyone can think of a proper merge target (or create it). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This software already appears in the article List of KDE applications. Suggest deletion with a redirect to that page. There's simply not enough reference material to this particular application to demonstrate notability, let alone write a proper article. Risker (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Weak keep : Comment: (was weak keep as relist but see re-!vote below) Rob Reilly Linux Journal Volume 2010 Issue 196, August 2010 Article No. 4 Real-time plots with kst and a Microcontroller ... seems a likely feasible reference though I haven't read it (its unlikely to refer to the Kepler space telescope but who knows?).  One  tenable redirect target is List of KDE applications.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Further scanning through some scholar hits ... and with kst meaning some other things as well filtering is nightmarish ... kst seems to being particularly applied where real time speed is essential. .Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted after Deletion review/Log/2019 April 14 overturned the "delete" closure.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've looked into the source code on this project and it seems to have stagnated, It may work very well but the toolkit it is using is a full generation behind with no activity in it's repo since 2014. The information is sparse even for a stub class article. I second the merge that User:Risker mentioned. I feel that it would better serve the average Wikipedia user if it was alongside similar software that would provide better context then an almost direct copy paste of it's main web page. On it's own it's notability is questionable, but with similar Software related to it, it's far more relevant. Andrdema (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant criterion is notability, not software development activity. Samsara 14:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to second that. At some point in its lifecycle software can get to the point where it just works and doesn't really need further development.  I don't say this has happened here ... but it is possible.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can second (third?) that too - with a stress that this is a clear fail of notability, since nobody has yet found a non-WP:PRIMARY (manual) source. This piece of code doesn't seem to have been reviewed or studied in depth, hence, it is not important enough to have a stand-alone article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is notable and could become a proper article. I would highlight the following points:
 * The title Kst suggests that this is statistics for KDE, and that seems to have been the idea when it was first created over a decade ago (and, btw, there are also stand-alone binaries for Macos and Windows, so it pretty much runs anywhere). However, the open source statistics market is now strongly dominated by R, which easily exceeds Kst in features. There isn't really any competition in that market any more, but of course, Wikipedia is not concerned merely with the here and now. As Djm-leighpark as well as the software's homepage emphasise, Kst's strengths are in real time visualisation of data. In fact, it may be the leading open source application in this area. This includes uses in electronics, medical devices, and astronomy. More on that below.
 * Perhaps one might wonder why there aren't any third party books on Kst. Well, the Canadian Space Agency provided funding to support the creation of what ended up being an almost 300-page manual written at the universities of British Columbia and Toronto. In case this is of interest, the authors are Duncan Hanson, Rick Chern, Philip Rodrigues, Barth Netterfield, Yiwen Mao, and Zongyi Zhang.
 * In terms of its connection to astronomy, Kst includes import filters for various formats that are either specific to, or were originally developed in, that field. These include HEALPix, CDF and netDCF, LFIIO, SCUBA and WMAP Time Ordered Data (TOD) files.


 * I may write more if I can find the time, but for now, I'd like to note that everyone commenting so far seems to have ignored the existence of the manual, with some even complaining about the absence of such material (e.g. Risker: "There's simply not enough reference material to this particular application"). Samsara 15:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Manuals are problematic sources, since generally they are WP:PRIMARY. If manual would be sufficient to make a topic notable, every household appliance would be notable. Heck, even USB hubs and such come with manuals these days... what doesn't? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Samsara 15:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need further discussion now the article has been significantly improved since the start of the AfD.
 * s>*Keep: Following development progression of article to scrape start-class by myself within the last 24 hours and with adequate referencing and removal of some contentious claims from WP:PRIMARY I am moved to change my !vore from weak keep to keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete—fails to assert why it's notable as currently written, and cursory checks for sources turn up no significant third-party sources discussing it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It seems like we need some more source analysis here based on the last few votes
 * Weak Keep. I've used KST for over a decade, but am not involved in the project. Linux Journal is in depth. The other refs just possibly push this over the line. It definitely shouldn't be deleted - at the very least it should be merged somewhere (KDE? An article on real time plotting?) - as the content does pass WP:V.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is separate from notability. The issue is not whether we can determine KST exists but whether it is notable enough to have an article. A Linux magazine that uses the software to accomplish a tutorial doesn't expressly demonstrate the importance of the software. Put another way: are there interviews with the creators about KST? An article about KST's importance in applications (rather than just examples where it is used?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The contents should be merged at the very least. We do have an interview - .Icewhiz (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: The sources per article source are grand. The totality of the hinting of the use of the interview (almost a cherrytoppping that interview actually) the hinting almost seems like an attempt to motivate upclassing work on the article but after 35 33 days at AfD/DRV by this one with associated scummering and another astronomical graphical pussycat as well I'm kinda spent and this is past the post.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: This has been here too long. Just have your way and bin it forever as that's what everyone wants.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note to closer Within a period of about 24 hours (my impression, did not count it precisely), Djm has added delete !votes or changed his keep !votes, with a "variety" of rationales, on multiple noms, mirroring his "change of opinion" here, in one case verbatim. Samsara 19:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.