Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XNUMBERS


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

XNUMBERS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject does not establishes its notability as required by WP:N. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NEXIST. Google scholar has quite a few references to this software, in that many scholarly works apparently rely on it.  That alone would make it notable, and something that a researcher would want to learn more about.  Going further, one of the scholarly articles  goes in depth about how this software is used and why it is useful... this published peer-reviewed academic paper doesn't just use the software, but is ABOUT the software.  This firmly establishes notability. Fieari (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. :)
 * Unfortunately, you have been mislead by false positives.
 * Please take another look at Google Scholar results. Here is a sample that appears in many results (boldface is original):
 * "... F 2 120 12.90 by 38.35 a' DISCUSSION F 7 120 3.19 c 7.56 c xNumbers followed by different letters are significantly ... XNumbers followed by different letters are significantly Indications are that factors for resistance to disease that different (P = 0.05). ..."
 * If you read the source, however, you see this:
 * "x Numbers followed by different letters are significantly different (P=0.05)"
 * Google has mistakenly parsed "x Numbers" as "xNumbers". (Sorry.)
 * Of course you did find one good source, but that alone does not indicate notability.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Lisa! Thank you for the clarification, although I was actually able to tell the difference in my earlier post.  Allow me to clarify-- if you do a google scholar search for "XNUMBERS" excel, you will find a large number of articles that specifically refer to this excel addin package.  Either simply using it, or discussing it.  Some additional examples, from this search:
 * Low cost environment for rapid prototyping of control algorithms for mechatronic plants based on Microsoft Office Excel application - A feedback system dynamic response analysis by root locus method using Excel spreadsheet and XNumbers add in package.
 * The Quantitative Structure–Retention Relationship (QSRR) analysis of some centrally acting antihypertensives and diuretics - Single and multilinear regression models were devel- oped for the dataset by use of the MicrosoftExcel 2000/ Regression Data Analysis and Multi-precision Floating Point Computation for Excel (XNUMBERS.XLA-Ver. 4.7 – 2006)
 * Design and QSAR study of analogs of α-tocopherol with enhanced antiproliferative activity against human breast adenocarcinoma cells - Single and multivariable linear regression models were developed for the data set by use of the Microsoft-Excel 2000/Regression Data Analysis and Multi-precision Floating Point Computation for Excel (XNUMBERS.XLA-Ver.4.7-2006).
 * Application of experimental design method in optimization of glucose-based surfactant production process - [6] Volpi L. (2007) XNUMBERS ver. 5.6. Multi-precision Floating Point Computation for Excel.
 * I know, not all of these are discussing XNUMBERS itself... but the fact that they are using XNUMBERS, and citing XNUMBERS, I believe establishes notability, as someone doing research on any one of these papers (and there are many many more I did not link) would want to know what XNUMBERS is, how reliable it is, how it works, and so forth, in order to aid in verifying the other research. There are sufficient sources for us to be able to accurately write the article, some primary, some secondary, and I firmly believe that notability is established. Fieari (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fieari - I think they make a good case for sufficient demonstrable coverage and notability. The screenshots could go, though - that's just padding of no interest. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Pls see below: Original comment: per the sources presented by Fieari; I believe this is borderline, but passable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sorry but per GNG, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (independent of the subject) is required. This falls far short of GNG. The references in google scholar only show that the plug in exists (See WP:ITEXISTS) but it doesn't demonstrate notability. We do not keep articles about software simply because they exist WP:NOTDIR. I would be glad if someone can show me some reliable secondary sources which demonstrate notability, but I have certainly not been able to find them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST  flyer  15:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete on second thoughts I cannot locate sufficient sources to meet GNG, and Google scholar citations are insufficient in demonstrating individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2016 (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.