Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statsmodels (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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statsmodels

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)

This article was deleted and then recreated. I can't find anything on the talk page or the edit history that justifies recreating this article. Independently, this article should be deleted because it doesn't meet WP: N. I found some self-published tutorials that use statsmodels for a particular purpose, but this does not meet the standard for reliability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify for me the standard by which, say, scipy meets notability? Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant to the discussion for this AfD? HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an example so I can understand better the standards by which notability for a software package might be determined in general. By at least some standards it seems to me that statsmodels is certainly notable, for instance the Seabold-Perktold article "Statsmodels: Econometric and Statistical Modeling with Python" has been cited on Google Scholar almost 5000 times. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I generally try to follow Wikipedia:Notability_(software) -- that paper wouldn't establish notability because it's written by the authors, but its citations might. If you can find citations that are independent of the author and discuss the library in-depth (as opposed to a simple mention of "we have X problem and we use the statsmodel library to solve it"), please add them to the article, and I'd be happy to withdraw the AfD. If an AfD results in the improvement of an article, I have no issue with that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, just a note that Soft Deletion is not an option here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did a quick Google search, didn't find any significant coverage. Niafied (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Github and their own website are about the best sources I can pull up, nothing which is useful for notability. There are no software reviews or any kind of coverage. Delete for lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 22 May 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.