Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scikit-learn Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scikit-learn

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scikit-learn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non notable open source software Gaijin42 (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It does get 23 hits in the Google scholar search. Do we consider that trivial mentions? MakeSense64 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw the nomination, I searched gnews and did not find references, I will be more vigilant in using scholar as well for articles like this. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly unusual, it is very seldom that gnews and gbooks come up empty for something that is all over gscholar. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, has significant coverage [1]. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I wrote this article, but I postponed doing so until after an article has been published about scikit-learn in the high-profile J. Machine Learning Research. If Orange deserves its own article, then so does scikit-learn, IMHO. This toolkit has dozens of developers, 163 forks on GitHub, a small ecosystem of supporting tools such as nltk-trainer, and occasional sponsorship from Google. Qwertyus (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is good, and with the other scholar links may be sufficient. Just a note, usage, community, ecosystem, support, etc are irrelevant for the purposes of establishing WP:N - except that items which have large robust communities will be correlated with WP:N Gaijin42 (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2011 (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.