Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PsyToolkit

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. slakr^\ talk / 04:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PsyToolkit

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

Non notable software. The only references in the article are by the author of the package, who apparently developed int for his own use. There are only 7 references in Google Schola� to his article on the program in Behavior Research Methods other than his own, and they are all from people mentioning it in terms of other methods that are the main subject of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the comments by User DGG, the idea of non-notable software is difficult to measure and define. For example, It should be noted that the software is used extensively in the teaching of psychology and around the world. This is not directly reflected in Google Scholar citations, but there are other citations (albeit currently not all listed) showing this. What is the solution, adding those? This article had been deleted before, although it existed for 4 years. Villaonisland (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have you any evidence that these programs are "used widely for the teaching of psychology around the world".? If there are reliable sources for that -- as distinct from scattered instances, then the product would probably be notable,especially is they discuss it in depth. They might have escaped }Google Scholar, so what is there? DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

There are several sources, I can add them when I have time. Some of these were in an earlier version of PsyToolkit which was deleted. The bar is set very high for this software. I have checked other software packages for specialist communities which have fewer references and cannot prove easily that they are notable. Given the subjectivity of notability, it might be worthwhile to give this article the benefit of the doubt. Villaonisland (talk 20 December 2014

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: @Northamerica1000: relisted the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 15, but @Samwalton9: commented it out from there and it never got fixed. Re-relisting at the current day's log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 18:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources listed in deleted revisions are already in the article (as the external link and the currently-first ref). I'm inclined towards deletion; this has had almost five years since first creation to get a source that doesn't trace back to the software's author. If such are eventually forthcoming, we can revisit it. —Cryptic 18:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient reliable sources to support notability. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:31, 23 January 2015 (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.