Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computational packages for Cosmologists

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. Renaming and/or restructuring as a list can be discussed on the article talk page. JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Computational packages for Cosmologists

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not sure if this article is needed. It appears that most of these software packages already have their own articles. Safiel (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If most of these software packages already have their own articles, then they are presumably notable, and this can become a WP:LIST. -- 101.119.14.237 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — 101.119.14.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep It provides a list of software which are notable in the community and are used by many cosmologists. The page can be linked to the cosmology page.128.101.170.117 (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — 128.101.170.117 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I have created this article to provide a lists of software which are most frequently used by the cosmologists. In wikipedia, there are articles on Physical cosmology and latest cosmology research and observation like WMAP, Planck etc. but there were no article where the software used in cosmology are listed. Similar article exist for other part of physics. Also as mentioned by others many of the software listed in the article have their own articles on wiki and they are notable in the cosmology research community. Unatnas1986 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have List of statistical packages, List of numerical analysis software, List of computer simulation software, and other similar lists. Nonetheless, for consistency, the article should be renamed to List of cosmological computation software, or something to that effect. -Anagogist (talk) 16:31, 6 March 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, czar ♔ 22:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A perfectly legitimate list, though I occasionally share the nominator's confusion as to why we have so many lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2014 (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.