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. While this is numerically even, multiple "delete" !voters have made the point that the coverage consists only of passing mentions. This is borne out by the sources provided here, and has not been rebutted. One "keep" voter argues that NSOFTWARE may not reflect the current reality of source material; while this might be a valid argument in general, a specific AfD is not the forum to debate this, and in this discussion it doesn't carry much weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SigmaXL[edit]

SigmaXL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Aside from the links to the company's own website, NONE of the references indicate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Meltzer (talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Filed incomplete nomination by Phil Meltzer. ✗plicit 03:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lack of WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE shows only primary sources and webpages for the product. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Notability is supported in the following references:

1. . S. Tereza and N. Darja, "Software support of nonparametric control charts," 2018 19th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC), 2018, pp. 456-461, doi: 10.1109/CarpathianCC.2018.8399673.

   "SIGMAXL: It is a leading supplement of MS EXCEL for the statistical and graphical analysis. This tool was designed to be cost effective, efficient, but easy to use. It is ideal for training of the Lean Six Sigma or for use in the courses of statistics at a university. An example of the SigmaXL work environment is in the figure 7."

2. . Sara Fontdecaba, Pere Grima & Xavier Tort-Martorell (2014) Analyzing DOE With Statistical Software Packages: Controversies and Proposals, The American Statistician, 68:3, 205-211, DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2014.923784.

   "This article studies and evaluates how five well-known statistical packages—JMP, Minitab, SigmaXL, Statgraphics, and Statistica—address the problem of analyzing the significance of effects in unreplicated factorial designs."

3. . Williams, B., Sayer, N. J. (2012). Lean For Dummies. United Kingdom: Wiley.

   "Excel can be programmed to do more, and add-on products like SigmaXL (www.SigmaXL.com) will provide nearly all of what mere mortals will ever need." (page 207)

4. . Morgan, J., Brenig-Jones, M. (2012). Lean Six Sigma For Dummies. United Kingdom: Wiley.

   "For more complex statistical analysis, try the Excel plug-in SigmaXL which lets you produce a variety of displays including SIPOCSs cause and effect." (page 18)

5. . Bass, I., Lawton, B. (2009). Lean Six Sigma Using SigmaXL and Minitab. United States: McGraw-Hill Education.

   "Since Lean Six Sigma is data-driven, any project conducted using this methodology will require the use of some software. We elected to use SigmaXL and Minitab. Most organizations use Microsoft Excel to organize and analyze their data. Excel is equipped with a substantial amount of tools for descriptive statistics and probability calculations but it still lacks capabilities for more complex data analyses. SigmaXl is a powerful statistics software suite that adds those capabilities to Microsoft Excel." (page 2) 🖉]] 3:30, 26 August 2021 (ET)

Above made by Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:1D60:27AC:BD9C:2FDB:DDD7:B42F. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, all of the sources cited above are offhand mentions and well short of WP:SIGCOV. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Source #2 is the prestigious journal, The American Statistician, which states that SigmaXL is a well known statistical package. Source #5 is an entire book published by McGraw Hill that utilizes SigmaXL software throughout. 15:27, 2 September 2021 (ET)

• Above comment made by Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:1D60:27AC:BD9C:2FDB:DDD7:B42F. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I scratched the keep vote above because the anon ip voted twice in this discussion. (See [1])4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others above.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep SigmaXL is indeed very well known in the Six Sigma community and has been around for 20+ years.DavidReilly007 (talk) 9:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Above comment made by user whose only contributions are to his user page and this afd. Seddon ^talk 22:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep passes WP:BASIC, and while the article currently is somewhat promotional that can be fixed. There is increasingly a need to upgrade WP:NSOFTWARE a guideline, given that tertiary about software will not be written the same way as books or other products. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, coverage supports that this software meets WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Keep suggestions offer nothing of substance: The subject of the article may be "very well known" in a specific "community," such as computer programmers, but this means nothing on its own. We need specific, third-party sources that support notability; not opinions. Other suggestions to Keep only claim "there are sources out there" but, again, this on its own simply won't do. Others offered the fact that prestigious and notable publishers "use" SigmaXL, but, again, this offers nothing in way of notability support: Where are the texts? The only offering of supporting sources came from an ISP whose only contribution has been to the article under consideration. In itself, this is, of course, not an issue, but the sources offered have, for better or worse, nothing more than passing mentions as part of lists (e.g. Tereza), name drops (e.g. Williams, Morgan), manuals (e.g. Bass), and so on. A gallant effort to invent notability, certainly, but there's no there there. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the sources provided acknowledged this plugins existence but not it's inherent notability. Lack of significant coverage. Seddon ^talk 22:28, 12 September 2021 (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.