Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ELAN software

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. Sandstein 16:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ELAN software[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks any third party sources to show notability. Sloetjes is an employee of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. It's an advert, very classily dressed up with doi ref, but an article lacking independent third-party sources all the same. Cabayi (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GrryT's addition of independent sources overcomes my problems with the article. Cabayi (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than WP:ITEXISTS I don't see anything that shows notatility even with the reliable source issues. - Pmedema (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pmedema for looking at the article. Can you please elaborate your view? IMHO, there is no doubt that ELAN fulfills the notability requirements as it is a well-established software. As requested, I also added now a number of other sources. GrryT (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ELAN is a relevant piece of software in qualitative data analysis and particularly in interpretation of language (signs/gestures). It is not an advert and the references used were suited best to the article. After the deletion flag was there, I immediately asked the question what the problem is, because there were external references and I did not get an answer to my question. Only now, in the description by Cabayi, he describes that Sloetjes is an employee and that's the problem. It would have been very helpful if someone had given this information earlier! I will add more sources now and I hope that this is sufficient. I find the way of communicating quite disencouraging and IMHO also quite disrespectful of the author to add a deletion flag 8 minutes after the creation of an article (while I was still editing the article). Why did the first moderator not just add the flag/information that the article is lacking third-party sources and that the author should add it? This would have been absolutely sufficient. Overall, I find peer-reviewing of new articles very helpful and I would like to express my gratitude that you actually do it. I just found the way how it was done quite unfortunate. GrryT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added now a number of external references to the article. I hope this sufficient to fulfill the requirements and to show notability. GrryT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some further additions to external links (ELAN manuals). Could you please tell me how and when the AfD can be closed? Thanks. GrryT (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, a week. WP:AFD tells all. Cabayi (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- FYI, I added even some more external references. I am now very happy with the article. I hope you, too. GrryT (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is this the same ELAN software here [1] that won an award? If so than put that in and I would consider it notable but as it stands a number of the references are 'mentions in passing', there are a number that come from the same source and a number that I guess I'd have to go to a library because they don't have URL links that can be checked out. I still feel the article is, "this is what it can do" but nothing that says, "this is why I'm notable" - Pmedema (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pmedema for your comment. The ELAN software which you link to is something entirely different. The ELAN software of the wiki article is a well established research software which is used in a large number of disciplines. That's why I added the references and the third-party additions to ELAN to show that this really is a notable piece of software. How else can I show that it is notable? Please tell what else you expect? I mean if you open, for example, the Pubmed citation index for studies that used ELAN you instantly find dozens of them. GrryT (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has it won an award? Are there many reviews about it specifically by notable 3rd party publications? - Pmedema (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are dozens of manuals by third parties and dozens of academic articles that used ELAN, but I am not aware of any award. But please keep in mind that awards for academic software are not really common. I search the internet to add some more third party information and reviews. GrryT (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hope that it is fine now after adding requested type of 3rd party references. GrryT (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sad reality is that academic software, and open-source software, both, even when widely used, usually receive far less attention, such as reviews and awards, than more commercial forms of software. This contributes to some unfair systemic bias resulting from Wikipedia's standards and practices for determining notability in covering software. Given Wikipedia's current methods, this bias cannot be avoided or reduced. Software which is academic, and open-source, as is Elan, suffers from both sources of inattention. -- Jerryobject (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have plenty of references now. (As an aside, it is a pity they have been entered manually rather than using templates such as {{cite}}, but while that is unfortunate, it is irrelevant to the question of deletion.) SJK (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.