Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RGraph

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. No consensus after 3 relists as to whether the sources provided are sufficient to support a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RGraph[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

We have a disagreement over whether this meets WP:NSOFTWARE. IMHO the coverage is insufficient: some mentions in passing and few how-to manuals both on the web and in print, but I am not seeing a single in-depth, reliable review. There is no discussion of the importance of this software, its history or such, just a few paragraphs here or there about how to code with it, effectively a manual. No awards, either. Does it merit a stand alone article on English Wikipedia or not? Thoughts appreciated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point of view: I consider this generally meets WP:NSOFTWARE. Although the article may not be ideal, at least remembering about WP:CONTN a quick search beyond shows the subject looks not too famous but notable according to the known criteria. But it is all IMHO, of course, and I cannot insist as a not yet too experienced editor (always glad to learn, willing to improve everytime), and unfortunately I have little time to look deeper now. Let's find the truth together. Appreciate the discussion and constructive opinions. Thanks Piotr for starting this. Avbgok (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Avbgok, we need to be specific. If you think this meets NSOFT, can you tell us which criteria from Wikipedia:Notability_(software)#Inclusion do you think it meets, and why? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to illicit more participation. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be up to the "keep" side to argue which sources make this pass WP:N, and they have not done so. Sandstein 12:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a response to User:Piotrus about WP:NSOFTWARE, I quote: It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. Each of the two book sources provided has several pages of coverage, fulfilling that criterion.

@User:Sandstein: Please see WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. It is not the job of other editors to make the case in either direction in such a discussion, but rather the duty of all participants to do their own due diligence. Modernponderer (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernponderer: Several pages in a book is not the same as being the subject of the book, which is what the quoted policy implies is preferable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Piotrus: And yet manuals are undoubtedly shorter than books on average, but that statement seems to weigh them equally... Given that that page is not policy (as you incorrectly described it as) but only an essay, we shouldn't be paying much if any attention to the precise wording. Modernponderer (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Modernponderer: I am not saying those sources should be dismissed, but I think they are not sufficient. Let's see how others will judge them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 1 February 2020 (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.