Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SeerSuite


 * 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 due to failing WP:N and WP:V. "Keep" opinions also failed to provide any reliable sources to support keeping article. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 05:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

SeerSuite

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Collection of software without any evidence of notability. The component software may be notable, but this suite of software is not. No third party sources to establish notability, as required by WP:N GrapedApe (talk) 13:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure this nomination is legitimate at all. I don't think the statement reflects any of the properties of the software - The nomination does not provide any support for "The component software may be notable" and "suite of software is not" and how the nomination came to this conclusion. Please improve the article to include references to it, rather then nominating it for deletion. I guess, the effort required to improve an article, is more than nominating it for deletion. Pradeep (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: I was about to say keep, but the coverage that I was thought was significant was not. The coverage was from the college where this was developed. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Google Scholar search shows several results which are unrelated to the place of software's origin. Furthermore, the paper about it was accepted to USENIX. Some sporadic results from general search reveal it's on a rise, so it might be a better idea to leave it alone. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to claim that software from the software suite is notable, but the suite itself is not. P.S.: A paper Google didn't show in first n pages and a ref from pt.wikipedia. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How exactly does a ref from pt.wiki give notability?--GrapedApe (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2011 (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.