Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSPP


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PSPP

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The project has not been updated in two years. In its current state, it is a non-functional, pointless replacement to SPSS, only being able to run two statistical tests. There are plenty of programs floating around that can run a t-test and ANOVA (which it can only run as an one-way analysis). The only claim to fame for this page is that it is a part of the GNU project. dr.alf 11:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above. Onnaghar (Speak.work?) 14:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rewrite - It's not true that it hasn't been updated for 2 years.  See .  Neither is the claim that it "only supports 2 statistical tests" accurate.  It also supports linear regression, binomial tests and chi-square tests.  Even if the above claims were accurate, it wouldn't be a reason for deletion, unless you also delete thousand other software pages, (such as Windows 95). Further, the claim that it is "non-functional" is also without foundation.  The user list achives show a small but significant portion of users. Footoomsch 08:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hypothesis testing is an important aspect of statistical analysis, but the size of the catalogue of statistical testing commands is by no means the only ledger by which a tool should be judged. One also should consider how it helps in visualisation of data, manipulation of data and the speed with which it does these things.  On the last two aspects at least, PSPP beats many other packages, hands down (SPSS included). Dontdoit 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Footoomsch and Dontdoit. It is notable, can be sourced easily, is part of a larger project, and is different from the other articles. Bearian 18:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it isnt pointless when you think that its free and spss costs thousands of dollars Carmen56 04:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless WP:ORG can be shown to be satisfied. What PSPP can and cannot do, or how it compares to SPSS, is not the point of a deletion discussion. Whether we can write a NPOV, verifiable article with reliable sources is. — TKD::Talk 06:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ORG is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about a computer program, not an organisation. I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that the current article is POV, unverifyable or unreliable. Dontdoit 02:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Both the title and shortcut of WP:ORG are misleading, but the guideline does cover products and services. "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if..." and WP:ORG. — TKD::Talk 04:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because I can only find linux package descriptions, project organization pages, and "man"-ual pages. I can find no third party recognition or establishment of this subject's notability. Sancho 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;fails to meet notability standards per above, and nobody has shown that there is a clear availability of sources that establish notability. &mdash; Deckiller 17:40, 10 August 2007 (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.