Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StatPlus


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

StatPlus

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

Appears to be non-notable software. ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not really notable in itself. From what I saw Google hits seem to all be from download sites and creators. But article is less than a day old. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2AlbinoFerret: Good listing on download archives doesn't make software unpopular. If you google some software, may be except very old like SPSS, Minitab, you will get many download links. E.g. - http://www.google.com/search?num=25&hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=sN8&q=medcalc+software&btnG=Search So, using filetype:pdf helps ;) Alexeysim06 (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of the download g-hits are also reviews, but besides those, g-scholar seems to find a lot of references to this. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * some are, many arent; Z-StatPlus seems something else altogether, an anti-static product. DGG (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see- some of those are off topic (and some are passing mentions). Some of those hits do refer to this piece of software; something to look at. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, a promotional article for non-consumer statistical software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Could you tell me in what sentence have you seen promotional words? P.S. I stop this discussion (for me). If wiki doesn't need new articles, it's better to publish them in magazines without any GPLs. I thought community needs more new referable information in comparison with articles without references. Alexeysim06 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - useful software. Rather commonly used software. StatPlus -wikipedia retrieves 160,000 hits! Kingturtle (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - hits exist, but not sufficient about the software, establishing its notability. Frank  |  talk  20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag with refimprove&mdash;I had come here to close this as no-consensus; however, I found that the software notability guideline is now a dusty part of history and this is a borderline case. I would say that there are two reliable sources that address the software as the main topic ... but they are borderline reliable sources.  I have converted these from external links to in-line references.  The first is a newsletter produced by a Mac users organization in Canada; the reason why I say this is a potential reliable source is that there is a newsletter content editor and there are organization posts filled with named individuals.  I have classed this as a news citation.  The second is a blog entry at MacResearch.org; normally, I agree that blogs should not be taken as reliable sources.  However, this blog both has a set of named staff and specifically has scientists who are using Macs in their research as contributors.  I have classed this as a web citation.  These two, in addition to verifiability lent by the company linkages, are sufficient to keep the article as a stand-alone for now.  I do not believe that the citations in the article sufficiently support notability of the software at present ... but notability is a guideline and I ask that this article be given the benefit of the doubt for now.  If no indisputably reliable sources become available in six months - it should be re-nominated for deletion, in my opinion. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:34, 15 June 2008 (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.