Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LabPlot (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LabPlot_(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 keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LabPlot

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

[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)

I am unable to find independent coverage to demonstrate WP:NSOFTWARE is met. The previous AFD did a poor job of testing notability, with the rationales to keep revolving around google hits, not sources. I have searched extensively and been unable to find any independent coverage. Note that the article has been substantially trimmed recently and led to the developers writing a blog post. At least one commenter on that article, as well as posters in the accompanying wikipediocracy thread also noted the lack of available sources. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: LabPlot provides a list of citations on their website. While most of these are academic papers that don’t seem describe LabPlot (at least in my sample of them), the GNU and NLNet links may be useful. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, these published education papers discuss LabPlot, albeit in Russian:

I’m tentatively going for keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> albeit in Russian

According to the language detection of Google Translate, both articles seem to actually be in Ukrainian, not Russian, which seems plausible given that they have both been written in Ukraine. 80.109.233.43 (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is independent coverage:

80.109.233.43 (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Hence (see the 2 links I posted above): keep. 80.109.233.43 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This seems to be about LabPlot in comparison with another graphing software. [1] Here's another source, but I'm not sure how reliable this website is. [2] Seems to be enough to scrape by. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The software is an important one in the scientific community and is supported by NLNet, which means is not a small software that will disappear in on year. Most people hearing about it will expect to find it on Wikipedia. Lioploum — Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD has been mentioned on the LabPlot website here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Perhaps someone should have introduced them to talk pages. They seem to have gone in and edited, then edit-warred, then written a screed on their own site that is many screens long. All they had to do was offer some reliable sources and the community would do the rest. Sheesh! Lamona (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This fiasco looks like a pretty good reminder of why the COI guideline exists – although made in good faith, the result looked very promotional and doesn't reflect independent sources; it's a lot of extra for an encyclopedic article that would better be contained to LabPlot's website. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this conference proceedings paper that also compares LabPlot to different graphing software: [3] [4] Whilst it appears the original site hosting the pdf is no longer live, the PDF can be accessed from archive.org here: [5] - page 1117 discusses LabPlot. Adding this along with some of the other sources listed above could perhaps be enough to improve it for now, and it seems that it's no less notable than other similar software with similar articles e.g. QtiPlot, SigmaPlot, SciDAVis - perhaps you could argue that these should also be deleted, but otherwise I think I would lean towards keep. WikiJN10 (talk) 21:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great find! Thanks for the paper. (Note that arguing that similar articles exist in a deletion discussion can only imply that the other articles should be deleted as well.) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2024 (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.