Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeological Recording Kit (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. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Recording Kit[edit]

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

Previous nomination in 2010 closed as no consensus after one participant provided a list of "sources" that were little more than routine mentions of archaeology programs using the kit. Notability has not been established either under WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Sources clearly indicate that it exists, but there are no in-depth reviews or discussions to be found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is an entire chapter of an academic book on digital archaeology dedicated to this software SJK (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the author of that chapter is one of the developers of the software [1]; they've published quite a lot of academic papers on it over the years. – Joe (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I didn't realise the author was one of the developers. That said, if you look at their publications page, a number of them are by folks who aren't identified as developers on their team page. Consider for example [2] – as far as I can tell the author of that book chapter is not an ARK developer (the author is a senior lecturer at the University of Glasgow). So, even if you think papers by their developers should be discounted, I think there is enough published by other people to make it notable. (I think the logic of excluding non-independent sources is they may be unreliable; when the source is published in a book by a reputable academic publisher, or in a reputable journal, or as a conference paper at a reputable conference, the review processes inherent in that mitigate a lot of the potential for unreliability, so I think we should be more open to accepting non-independent sources when they take the form of reputable academic papers.) SJK (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) I agree, I just thought it was something to bear in mind. Even the papers by the developers, though not fully independent, were published in independent peer-reviewed sources, so I don't think they should be fully discounted. And if you take together the papers by the developers, papers by loosely associated projects that use ARK [3][4], and general papers on digital recording in archaeology (I think you'd struggle to find one published in the last 10 years that didn't reference ARK) [5][6][7][8][9][10], there's a pretty substantial amount of coverage. I feel a little too close to the subject to !vote on it though. – Joe (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 17 April 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.