Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GraphPad Software Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GraphPad_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, no clear consensus to merge from this AfD as it is suggested as an alternative, thus a proper merge request would be best to gain consensus on whether to perform that. Consensus to keep is clear however, --Taelus (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GraphPad_Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

I am nominating for deletion three articles: GraphPad Software, GraphPad Prism, and GraphPad InStat.

They are all mostly written by User:HarveyMotulsky, who is the CEO of that company. I do not believe this is a dishonest move, but there is still a important conflict of interest. It does seem like it is a nice program, but I'd be more comfortable if a third party were too add the entry. If we remove the entries that are not from that user, there is very little left, just barely enough to make a single stub article. Therefore I think the three articles should be deleted entirely. If another user has something to say about this, then, the article can be recreated. However, even if that were to happen, I am not sure it would pass the notability threshold.

Tony (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (the software articles) WP:COI says "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." The originator has met the requirement for declaring an interest on his home page (but not on the articles' talk pages). I judge the contents to be simple descriptions, without overblown claims, and there are links to independent reviews of the software. In general the description is at a comparable level to other articles in Category:Statistical software. Melcombe (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Issues about merging some of the articles and COI can be dealt with in the articles there is no clear reason to delete. Polargeo (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge - Merging them all would be a good option, but there is no reason to delete them, there does not seem to be blatant POV pushing in the articles which warrant to request their deletion under WP:COI. -RobertMel (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GraphPad Prism is pretty widely used in the scientific community, and seems to have enough reviews in legitimate pub (Ars Technica, etc). While there might not be a need for all the articles, a merge would work. Also, hand nominator a trout per Melcombe. Bfigura ^(talk) 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. Had I not seen here that the author has a conflict, I wouldn't have known. Everything looks good to me. No objection to a merge, if that's where consensus goes - but the articles are fine as-is. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I wrote the articles in question, and indeed I am the CEO/founder of GraphPad Software. I never tried to hide this, and used my real name and stated my title. I'd be happy to answer any questions. GraphPad Prism is used by well over a hundred thousand scientists, which I think makes it notable. I think it makes slightly more sense to keep the three articles distinct, but can understand why some would prefer they be merged. HarveyMotulsky (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2010 (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.