Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SunPy

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. Sandstein 21:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SunPy

[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)

No evidence of notability. Search shows no evidence of significant independent coverage. Only reference is to website of the topic. DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be some on-line references: PROC. OF THE 12th PYTHON IN SCIENCE CONF. (SCIPY 2013) and Arxiv. But I agree notability is doubtful, both are essentially primary sources. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notability is well in specific research areas: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=sunpy python&oq=sunpy pyth

It is published in an academic journal: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1749-4699/8/1/014009/ WikiNiki (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it is very niche but seems to be commonly used within that niche. A significant number of research papers use it. There is at least one detailed paper published on it. PriceDL (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only available sources are primary. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No prejudice on recreation if better sources can be found. SportingFlyer talk 22:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had commented earlier on the availability of primary-sourced references without offering an opinion. After this long with the article still having no meaningful contents, I think it's time to delete it, without prejudice. If there is a desire for the article, the next creator will presumably include some content. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signifcant coverage in independent sources. Shouldn't be recreated unless it becomes sufficently notable for inclusion.--Pontificalibus 13:34, 26 December 2018 (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.