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 no consensus. Article has been improved with additional content and sources added since the first week listed, after which it drew two !keep votes. Also, one of the delete !votes did not seem have understood what the subject of the article was. --
Patar knight - chat/contributions00:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment What about the PeerJ reference? Looks like peer reviewed journal with some impact factor. If authors of that paper are independent on PyMC3 (which seems to be the case), it would be quite strong RS.
Pavlor (
talk)
09:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep A chapter devoted to PyMC3 (2nd ref in article) and all the sources added by
XOR'easter and others since show multiple independent RS describing the package and its impact in the Bayesian community. It is enough for to satisfy
WP:GNG and keep the article. --
Mark viking (
talk)
17:00, 20 September 2017 (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.
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 no consensus. Article has been improved with additional content and sources added since the first week listed, after which it drew two !keep votes. Also, one of the delete !votes did not seem have understood what the subject of the article was. --
Patar knight - chat/contributions00:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment What about the PeerJ reference? Looks like peer reviewed journal with some impact factor. If authors of that paper are independent on PyMC3 (which seems to be the case), it would be quite strong RS.
Pavlor (
talk)
09:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep A chapter devoted to PyMC3 (2nd ref in article) and all the sources added by
XOR'easter and others since show multiple independent RS describing the package and its impact in the Bayesian community. It is enough for to satisfy
WP:GNG and keep the article. --
Mark viking (
talk)
17:00, 20 September 2017 (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.