Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nesstar


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  01:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Nesstar

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No in-depth secondary coverage. Cited sources are all non-independent, except a blog source with only a passing mention. Google News turns up a handful of passing mentions. The article is overly promotional, with "early player in the development of internet-supported research data management" being unsourced and a claim about Statistics Canada being "built on Nesstar tools" being unsupported by the cited source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology,  and Norway. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Firefangledfeathers, thanks for reviewing the article.
 * I just want to add a bit of context to this. Nesstar is/was (as the article states) an open-source tool that supported the growth of research data management in the social sciences, in particular social research. The platform is no longer supported or developed (it's end-of-life) and, as far as I can tell, Nesstar (the organization) has also been dissolved. So this is not intended to be a promotional piece, but rather to describe a (historic?) piece of software. I'm in no way related to this project (just a social science data librarian).
 * I recognize the lack of sources you mentioned, and perhaps I "un-drafted" the article too soon. Aliciabedul (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aliciabedul, I've been careless a few times in the past few days about using "promo" as an assessment of the content when it could very reasonably be taken as a comment on the contributor's intentions. I definitely didn't mean to communicate the latter, and I'm sorry for not being clear about that. If you're amenable to draftification, and no one votes for deletion in the meantime, I'd be happy to withdraw and close this nomination and draftify the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC) striking now that another editor has !voted to delete 01:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair. I've saved a copy of the content and if I find I can have it meet the standard, I might re-create it later on.
 * No offense taken, I see how the language you cited could come across as not objective. Aliciabedul (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Topic does not meet the general notability guideline, though my submission is made without prejudice for a recreation of this article in future. Deletion does not prevent the author from saving the text and recreating if deleted. However it will act as insurance - if the article is quickly recreated despite a consensus to delete, and is materially the same as before, it means it can be speedily deleted. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a company, it's likely not notable.  However, the product has received some academic attention in library science:, , and a well-cited article called "NESSTAR: A Semantic Web application for statistical data and metadata" that I can't readily find a PDF of.  FalconK (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 22:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * comment Some coverage over security vulnerabilities, Statistics Canada has stopped using it. Not really enough to build an article here about the product. Oaktree b (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.