Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gumpy
- 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Gumpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coverage in independent reliable sources. It was published in this paper, which has 2 citations according to Google Scholar. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE. signed, Rosguill talk 08:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This is looking like a case of writing too soon, at best. Compare PyTorch and PyMC3 for examples of the kind of coverage we need to write an encyclopedia article on a topic like this. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Software is only 13 months old and only getting mentions in blogs on GitHub. Fails GNG and NPRODUCT, and no evidence that it will ever meet these criteria. Britishfinance (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- 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.