Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOPCAT (software)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 November 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TOPCAT (software)[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)

Prodded with "Notable? dubious, prodding". Contested with "Where exactly is the harm in leaving this article be? It is neither nonsense nor written like an advertisement, and Wikipedia, being digital, is not bound by limits on physical size or weight; your book shelves are not going to collapse by leaving the article here. Instead of coming up with ever more stringent a-priori requirements on "notability", ask yourself "could this information one day be of use to someone?". Create, don't destroy." So, um, yeah. Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Horribly underdeveloped article not currently fit for mainspace. Nom has not seemed to be bothered to notify creator and possibly dePRODer. Not added to relevant WikiProjects on talk page and and weak on the categories front. No one seems to have tried tagging templates first before presenting to AfD. If it wasn't that I have just been looking an another graphical software that had it origins in Astrophysics I wouldn't probably have given this one a second glance and probably pointed at the dustbin. Common searches will normally yield a lot of results equating to an Officer Dibble related pussycat or various other software called Topcat, which is I suppose a change from everyone calling there software Phoenix. I do however notice the product is of a substantial and sustained nature and have found [a mini recommendation from Hawaii] indicating a flicker of hope and this from GAVO is also supportive but there'll possibly be a tad more than these to save. The thing will require a rescue attempt to stay.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Revised article addresses concerns.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NSOFTWARE (has not been "recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources.") - the "Where exactly is the harm in leaving this article be?" argument is addressed at WP:HARMLESS in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - Epinoia (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the effective misquoting of WP:NSOFT nor the over weighting of the scummering of the PRODer IByte behind from what seems to be behind their back.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSOFT/WP:NSOFTWARE is not a guideline, and it has never been approved by the community through RfC. The applicable guideline for TOPCAT is WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 21:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- reluctantly, I find myself having to agree that Djm-leighpark's additions and improvements seem to have addressed the reasons for deletion. Reyk _YO! 11:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep. Meets WP:GNG.~~ I've added two more open access academic sources (found through Google Scholar and JSTOR) to the article. — Newslinger talk 13:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline. I'm striking my previous position, as MDPI (one of the added sources) has a questionable history. — Newslinger talk 13:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This has been here too long. Just have your way and bin it forever as that's what everyone wants.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Deletion is certainly not what I want.~~ Here are the two sources I've added~~, which should qualify the article under WP:GNG~~:
1. Taylor, Mark (27 June 2017). "TOPCAT: Desktop Exploration of Tabular Data for Astronomy and Beyond". Informatics. 4 (3). MDPI: 18. doi:10.3390/informatics4030018.
2. Comparato, M.; Becciani, U.; Costa, A.; Larsson, B.; Garilli, B.; Gheller, C.; Taylor, J. (August 2007). "Visualization, Exploration, and Data Analysis of Complex Astrophysical Data". Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific. 119 (858). Astronomical Society of the Pacific: 898–913. arXiv:0707.2474. Bibcode:2007PASP..119..898C. doi:10.1086/521375. JSTOR 10.1086/521375.
— Newslinger talk 21:56, 12 May 2019 (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.