Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of numerical analysis software

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. NAC Swarm^(Talk) 02:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of numerical analysis software

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

Several violations including: WP:LINKFARM, WP:ELNO, WP:LINKSPAM Jwesley₇₈ 20:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Jwesley₇₈ 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ——Korath (Talk) 21:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This looks legitimate on its face. Why won't simple removal of entries without articles suffice? —Korath (Talk) 21:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few reasons:

The inclusion criteria is overly broad: "programs used for performing numerical calculations". This would include Excel, Quicken, etc.... See WP:LSC
The list has devolved into "anything related to math and computers", including developer libraries and programming languages. Thus, it's just a "link farm". WP:LINKFARM
There are numerous external links that should all be removed (especially if they point to commercial software). See WP:LINKSPAM
Of the entries that do have articles, I believe most have questionable notability.
Looking at the talk page you can see that the purpose of this page is not clear. A couple editors have asked what appropriate to include. (added)Jwesley₇₈ 22:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jwesley₇₈ 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this list is of limited utility considering that is a category for Numerical software. Jwesley₇₈ 22:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, this is not a valid problem. It's covered in WP:LISTPURP. Jwesley₇₈ 22:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be appropriate to merge this article with Comparison of numerical analysis software. Jwesley₇₈ 22:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many entries have articles here. Just remove the non-notable ones. Per WP:CLN having a category is not a reason to delete this list. Spreadsheets have their own list (and separate category), so that's a non-issue as well. Nominate articles that fail WP:N individually, nominating this list won't get those articles deleted either. Merging it with the "Comparison..." article, which really is a list in table format, is probably a good idea, because that one seems to have fewer items, but there's no need to start an AfD for that, just merge it and redirect. Pcap ping 22:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Merging is probably the best option. Jwesley₇₈ 22:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune. The arguments above seem to point to a pruning of the list to remove the non notable products (those lacking at least one independent non-trivial reliable source). It does seem to be the case that the list does add value over a category, as just the names would not help identify the software for specific purposes. There does seem to be some overlap with List of numerical libraries and I'd sugest reoving those entries which are libraries rather than free standing software. --Salix (talk): 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article says "computer programs used for performing numerical calculations"; as Jwesley says, that could include anything from Mathematica to Windows Calculator. I'd say keep if there were reasonable criteria here but as it is it's just indiscriminate information. If you restricted to programs with Wikipedia articles then how is it an advantage over Category:Numerical software? I'm not saying delete because I'm not convinced these problems are insurmountable, but it appears that some more thought should go into the purpose of the article and how inclusion criteria should be defined before it meets WP standards.--RDBury (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove non-notable software per Pohta ce-am pohtit. A merger with Comparison of numerical analysis software would also be acceptable as a second option. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While all software by their very construct perform "numerical analysis" to run, there are some that are specifically designed for this task. I suggest a cleanup, removing non-notable software and narrowing the scope of the list. Smallman12q (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as necessary. Nom is uncompelling and incompatible with previous similar discussions. No objection to a merge per above. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this article is very useful, but would remove non-notable packages. Derek farn (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its contents should be merged into Comparison of numerical analysis software and the pure list nature of this page should be replaced by Category:Numerical software. That is what Categories are for isn't it? JonMcLoone (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except this isn't a "pure list." The list elements are sorted and summarized, which is not possible with a category. After Jwesley78's cleanup, this really isn't that bad of a list. I'd have no qualms for a merge and redirect to the software comparison article, but that is a far cry from "delete" & this should NOT be deleted. --Karnesky (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is useful list.--Tim32 (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Comparison of numerical analysis software. I think it is valuable to have a list of software packages to do numerical analysis with, especially because computers have become so important in so many different fields using applied numerical analysis. The functional difference between this page and the other one is lost on me though. DSP-user (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i found it really useful, like others lists (e.g. list of UML tools). I wrote minor edits after a long search about math software for PDAs and teaching, because i thought "it can avoid stressful searches for others users". (sorry for my bad englih) --Pier4r (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think such a list is useful, especially in the sciences where this kind of software is often the bedrock of the main job of data analysis. A list is not linkspam (of course links should be to wikip articles and any actual linkspam should be removed from the page). DSP-user's suggestion to merge may be good. --mcld (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly in need of work, but with clean up looks like it would be useful enough. Ian¹³ /t 22:54, 3 March 2010 (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.