Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PyCM

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. AfD is not a vote, and the opinions of editors with low participation in Wikipedia outside of this discussion (including the article creator), are given little weight. The arguments for keep rely on sourcing that is not generally considered sufficient to demonstrate notability of the subject. bd2412 T 19:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PyCM (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)

It is pretty clear to me that this is a course project/student project with which an associated paper is published. As of now, this do not belong here. We should see if this gets more popular. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this article is good enough in comparison with other open-source softwares that accepted before (like Cantera_(software) & Aika_(software)). َAnd in my opinion with this popularity and dependent codes, it is something more than a course project. Sarminhamidi (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying other non-notable articles. They have both been PRODed. Clnreee (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I see, I guess the article has enough to be kept here. This article provides reliable references (i.g. Journal of open source software and Github -the most popular community of software developers-, etc.) in comparison with other accepted articles for "open-source software" (as @Sarminhamidi: has mentioned) that most of them are self-cited (some of them even do not reach the Wiki's criteria). In addition, this library with more than 640 stars, 200 dependent codes and 1000 installs per week, is more popular than currently available articles on English Wikipedia like ELKI, Cantera and OpenNN.

I hope my comments are helpful. Aviow (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously, Github is taking the role of a reliable source? Viztor (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Viztor: "As of May 2019, GitHub reports having over 37 million users and more than 100 million repositories (including at least 28 million public repositories), making it the largest host of source code in the world." ^{[1] [2] [3]}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviow (talk • contribs)

• Those would be good for the GitHub page, but have no relevance for this article. Clnreee (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of the lack of significant mentions in third party reliable sources. Clnreee (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of meeting NSOFT. Charmk (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems a notable article to me. Some big names like Naver^[1] and Maastricht University ^[2], used this library in their projects. And also this library has top rank in statistics ^[3] and statistical-analysis ^[4] topics in github.--SebastianQuilo (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SebastianQuilo: I mean. You do sound like we're going to map the whole dependency tree of Github projects. We're not going to have an article on non-notable library even if some other non-notable libraries authored by some notable entities use it. Notability is not inherited. You don't write an article about every single department of a company, same here for libraries.Viztor (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Viztor: Your statement (Notability is not inherited) is completely right. But a big question is : what is the exact definition of notability? there is no general answer for this question which includes all the topics. These kinds of libraries, never reach general notability, but are popular between experts. I suggest you to take a look at Scikit-learn (a big name in machine learning), most of it's references are their own website.--SebastianQuilo (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SebastianQuilo: Well, your arguments are based on definition, so I will have to answer on that. Notability can be defined in many ways, as given in many guidelines. However, I'm pretty sure in this particular case, the library is not that popular even in the list you give, with the top one having 5k stars and this few hundreds, while scikit-learn is the most popular in some categories. If you'd like to push for some other inclusion criteria for software libraries inclusion, I'd welcome that. However, even if something like that is presented, with the data we have now, this particular library would not merit an article. Viztor (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. User is trying to create resume for himself. Check similar AFDs: LMPHP and PHP JSON Parser. Also User:SebastianQuilo is created for this AFD (registered 2 days ago with 12 edits). --  ARASH PT  talk  22:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Arash.pt: Be fair, I'm not related to this article, but your comparison is funny. --SebastianQuilo (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: based on references found above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV and WP:PROMO . Wikipedia is not the place for people to promote their own projects and such corruption should be swiftly uprooted from this encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2019 (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.