Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaxStat

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. ✗plicit 23:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaxStat

[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)

Only one source, and it does not constitute significant coverage. Can't find any reliable sources that cover this. PopoDameron ⁠talk 01:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Software. PopoDameron ⁠talk 01:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely used statistical analysis software package, with a large number of Google Scholar citations (although many just say MaxStat was used on the data). I have added two substantive scholarly treatments, one of which addresses functionality and the other of which explains its use. I also improved the style and added an infobox. Oblivy (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources you added was written by the author of this software, so that of course does not prove much when it comes to notability. The other is a general overview and comparison of a number of different statistical packages and such. I don't see this showing notability on its own, especially looking at the conference it was published in. Does not seem credible at all. PopoDameron ⁠talk 06:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which one was written by the author? I believe the author is Oliver Wurl; AFAIK neither article is associated with him. Oblivy (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, the author is Torsten Hothorn. Do you have any source that says otherwise? Also, by the way, is the package's website a 403 page for you too? PopoDameron ⁠talk 06:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is. Archive.org shows it was up as of late 2022, now it pings but doesn't serve up a page. Oblivy (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe the notable one isn't the one that the page is based on? The one on Github is the piece of software is was thinking of, although the one from Germany is the one that's on all the software hype sites. Oblivy (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see it on GitHub.[1] Strange, as Wurl is listed as the software developer elsewhere. Maybe two different software packages? Oblivy (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly complicate things, but I was honestly beginning to suspect it too. PopoDameron ⁠talk 06:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete Website is nonresponsive, and there isn't enough out there on the software which is the subject of the article to build more content/cites off of.Oblivy (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Website yields a 403, lacking in sources with little other information to be found, and much of the article reads like a sales pitch. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2023 (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.