Deletion of Astropy

Comment: FoBM, if you'd study the list thread you might realise that there was ''first'' a call for volunteers to document the project on Wikipedia, and once someone took the burden of setting up the initial page (thanks again rjsdotorg!), others joined in with their contributions as well. Even some who just joined Wikipedia to work on this (which includes myself). And, yes, the rest of the community was encouraged to contribute more after the AFD came up, since I think we were frankly taken by surprise that 10 min after one starts work on a new page someone comes by and requests to delete it. But this seems nonetheless like a perfectly reasonable working mode to me. Also, input on the various distributions and projects often can only come from those who are directly involved at this point. I don't know if this now qualifies as  |Meatpuppetry
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:MEAT)

Comment: to FITS#Using FITS files. First of all, a  goes to the nominator for bringing to AfD an article only 12 minutes old and thus ing a relatively new editor. Much better would have been to place a notability or promotional tag on the article and best would have been to contact the editor and discuss your concerns. Regarding the article, AstroPy is fairly new, having been released to the public in July 2013. There seems to be a lot of momentum behind it http://www.stsci.edu/institute/conference/astropy and it will no doubt become notable in time. But for now, there are few publications that mention it. There are primary publications that are reliable sources, such as Astronomy & Astrophysics article, and there are secondary publications that use AstroPy, but don't go in depth about AstroPy itself. Unfortunately, I could not find multiple, in-depth, independent reliable sources to satisfy notability per . However, basic facts about AstroPy are verifiable in reliable sources and per , we should strive to preserve verifiable information. As AstroPy has or will become the canonical python FITS implementation, I suggest merging a short summary to the FITS article section FITS#Using FITS files, where the package is already mentioned. There is no prejudice to recreation when multiple independent reliable sources become available
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT||WP:BITE||WP:GNG||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: The arXiv papers used as sources all seem to be legitimate conference papers; I think that satsfies  and . -- Special:Contributions/101.119.14.34|101.119.14.34
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)