Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PyMC3 (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Article has been improved with additional content and sources added since the first week listed, after which it drew two !keep votes. Also, one of the delete !votes did not seem have understood what the subject of the article was. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

PyMC3
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:PRODUCT. The previous AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  02:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * delete. Still seems non-notable with not enough to justify its existence.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 08:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment What about the PeerJ reference? Looks like peer reviewed journal with some impact factor. If authors of that paper are independent on PyMC3 (which seems to be the case), it would be quite strong RS. Pavlor (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The authors of that paper are the three main contributors to the project, so not independent. It does not read like a normal academic paper, more a paper written to promote their work.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 07:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Clear case then... Pavlor (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NCORP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a corporation, but software package that is widely used based on referencing in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep A literature search turned up enough documented examples of people using it that it clears the bar for scientific software. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep A chapter devoted to PyMC3 (2nd ref in article) and all the sources added by and others since show multiple independent RS describing the package and its impact in the Bayesian community. It is enough for to satisfy WP:GNG and keep the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I think it easily passes WP:GNG after looking at sources retrieved by Google books and scholar. Page itself does not really seem promotional to me. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:48, 30 September 2017 (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.