Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berkeley Madonna

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Madonna

Berkeley Madonna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Andreas27krause with the following rationale "Adding some more detail on what Berkeley Madonna is all about". Sadly, the refs still don't seem sufficient, and I don't see any better: this software exists, has been used by some scholars in their work, but what about it makes it encyclopedic? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete perhaps unless this can be moved elsewhere as I found some links at Books but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 08:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – @SwisterTwister: no offense intended, but do you actually view the articles that the links go to, or do you just base your opinion from the search engine result summaries, such as how many times the name of a topic is in boldface in the summaries? I found the sources below quite easily, all of which provide significant coverage about the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 I noticeably view the articles and search engines, yes, but I hadn't found the links below, no. SwisterTwister talk 20:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Clearly and easily passes WP:GNG per sources found using the Google Scholar link and Google Books link atop this discussion. Source examples include: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4]. @Piotrus and SwisterTwister: pinging participants herein to review sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Northamerica1000: Nobody is questioning that this software exist. By its nature, it probably is and as you've shown, has been used by some academics. However, I don't think a tool (software) becomes notable unless it is either widely used or has received in-depth coverage that would make it pass GNG. Since you've found those sources, would you mind commenting whether any of them provides in-depth coverage? Because I don't think anyone can argue this tool is widely used (as in - hundreds of papers, being a subject of instruction at various campuses, etc. - compare let's say SPSS). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; not only mentioned in several peer-reviewed, multiply cited scientific papers [1] -- to be fair, many off-hand or as a comparison to the different software they ended up using -- but also described in some detail and even the focus of independently-written works (e.g. the Laboratory Manual of Biomathematics and CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology cites given by North America, respectively). I can also find a few links suggesting it's at least been briefly covered in post-secondary course instruction, if only as part of short workshops or labs [2][3][4]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2015 (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.