Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NodeXL


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

NodeXL

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable software package. Prod removed by author with claims of notability made on the talk page. Those claims have proven to be incorrect. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless more independent coverage is provided. Right now there is only one verifiable reference in the article (article "Analyzing (social media) networks with NodeXL" in "Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Communities and technologies"), but as at least one of the authors of the article seems to be affiliated with software, it is IMHO a very weak claim for notability. Ipsign (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added a second reference in the article to a review of the book that was written by someone who is not affiliated with the software and added some more press-coverage information to the article discussion page. Vlad43210 16:50, 24 November 2010
 * Thanks; BTW, you might want to incorporate some of the links into the article; also asking for a help from a rescue squad might be a good idea. Ipsign (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Abstain based on added links (both article and talk page); while they might not comply with WP:RS (at least one of them IMHO looks as a paid ad-like content), now I'm not so sure if the article should be deleted. Ipsign (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The only link that has been added is one at the SapDesign user forum, which I am somewhat skeptical about. That review looks more like a paid advertisement for the product than an indepdentent review.  And a user review at a user forum does not really count in the reliable sources category.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you seen links added to the talk page? I agree some of them are questionable, but not sure if all of them are. Ipsign (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Added more content (including references to papers and conference presence, plus a more detailed description of the features, plus screenshot) to the page. Please take a look and see if the article is more appropriate for Wikipedia now. I also added a Rescue Squad template link. Vlad43210 (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: most of the citations appear WP:QS, and/or non-significant coverage. Article structure also has the feel of grab-bag WP:IINFO rather than an encyclopaedic article. Wikipedia is not meant to be an index for obscure software and any mention of it on technical websites. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Most does not mean all, or all but one. I would be happy to eliminate citations that you think are inappropriate, but (see below) I argue that there are a number of citations that are not WP:QS. I think the article structure does need work, but that should be a matter of editing, not deletion. This software has been downloaded over 30,000 times (as I have mentioned on the article discussion page) a number that is far from obscure for the network analysis community. This software has been continuously supported by funding and research efforts from a number of universities / research labs, as described in the article. This software has been described and used in multiple peer-reviewed publications and not just technical websites. Vlad43210 (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC) — Vlad43210 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   squeal 20:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sources are too weak to pass WP:GNG. Also fails Notability (software).  Snotty Wong   squeal 20:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I disagree that the sources are too weak to pass WP:GNG. The "NodeXL and research" section of the article includes citations to peer-reviewed publications, at least two of which are not by members of the team. I have also added a link to a World Bank Group blog post that a) addresses the subject in detail, b) is reliable, c) is a secondary source, d) is independent of the subject and thus fulfills WP:GNG in my understanding. Vlad43210 (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC) — Vlad43210 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep: I disagree that the article fails Notability (software). As per the second notability guideline: "The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs." There is a list of these courses on the Article page. I can provide syllabi if necessary to show that the software is the focus of the course and not merely used in the course. Vlad43210 (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC) — Vlad43210 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Vlad -- you've already expressed your keep opinion. Any other replies to this thread should be marked as comments.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hrafn. Because of the way the references are provided, as bare links instead of via proper citation templates, their quality is difficult to assess. But I'm not immediately seeing any standout reference to substantial coverage in a reliable source.  Sandstein   08:08, 4 December 2010 (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.